Facebook, etc

My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
- don't get me wrong.

But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
what "we" say on "our" website

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
role of this monarch in English history.


This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.

(1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
(leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
(no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
ever discussed with the membership?)

(2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).

(3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
people today expect to know more sooner.

I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.

A J

Hello AJ, you couldn't have put things better and no the membership has not been consulted on anything from the very start of the search for Richard, only when money was needed for the dig to carry on.
As a member of The Richard III Society I am disgusted at the lack of consultation with the members, we are always told that there is nothing to consult about or vote upon.
Emailing a certain person high on the committee results in a pat on the head, go away and behave yourself . I personally have been treated like this as if I am some sort of ignorant un academic person.
I'm afraid I see the present chair as a dictatorship as do many others.
Rant over, but it makes me so mad that members are not consulted.
I was always of the opinion that the EC was responsible to the members and not the other way round. I' afraid that Richard is the one that will suffer in all this.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.

The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.

________________________________


 A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:




 
My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
- don't get me wrong.

But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
what "we" say on "our" website

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
role of this monarch in English history.

This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.

(1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
(leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
(no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
ever discussed with the membership?)

(2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).

(3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
people today expect to know more sooner.

I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.

A J

To you it's carping. To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of
the society & its goals.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against? Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now? I suspect not. Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
>
> The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. For most of the
> years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly
> happy to let them get on with it. Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is
> right. They are working with the people they need to work with in order to
> get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Perhaps they should be
> allowed to continue, without constant carping.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wasn't referring to your post, but to the deluge of carping on various sites ever since Richard was found.

 A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:



To you it's carping.  To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of
the society & its goals.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
>
> The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the
> years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly
> happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is
> right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to
> get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be
> allowed to continue, without constant carping.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

That sounds reasonable!

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:04 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Facebook, etc

To you it's carping. To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of
the society & its goals.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against? Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now? I suspect not. Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
>
> The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. For most of the
> years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly
> happy to let them get on with it. Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is
> right. They are working with the people they need to work with in order to
> get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Perhaps they should be
> allowed to continue, without constant carping.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying. And I should have said not so much the
goals of the society (which I believe are still pertinent) but the methods
used to accomplish those goals.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I wasn't referring to your post, but to the deluge of carping on various
> sites ever since Richard was found.
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> To you it's carping. To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of
> the society & its goals.
>
> A J
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> > polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. There have
> > been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> > problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> > result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever
> and
> > 50.5% against? Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> > unpleasant discussion we have had now? I suspect not. Some things are
> > purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change
> people's
> > mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. For most of the
> > years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
> perfectly
> > happy to let them get on with it. Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do
> is
> > right. They are working with the people they need to work with in order
> to
> > get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Perhaps they should be
> > allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan
> a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

One of the perils of written communication - the writer is absolutely clear about meaning, forgetting that the reader has a different reaction.  It's so much easier to pick up clues to meaning face-to-face }:

________________________________
: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:


Oh okay.  Thanks for clarifying.  And I should have said not so much the
goals of the society (which I believe are still pertinent) but the methods
used to accomplish those goals.

A J
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> I wasn't referring to your post, but to the deluge of carping on various
> sites ever since Richard was found.
>
>
>  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> To you it's carping.  To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of
> the society & its goals.
>
> A J
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> > polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have
> > been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> > problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> > result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever
> and
> > 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> > unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are
> > purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change
> people's
> > mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the
> > years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
> perfectly
> > happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do
> is
> > right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order
> to
> > get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be
> > allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan
> a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Agree totally. This was shared recently on one of the Facebook pages --

How to start an argument on the internet.
(1) Express an opinion.
(2) Wait.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> One of the perils of written communication - the writer is absolutely
> clear about meaning, forgetting that the reader has a different reaction.
> It's so much easier to pick up clues to meaning face-to-face }:
>
>
> ________________________________
> : A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying. And I should have said not so much the
> goals of the society (which I believe are still pertinent) but the methods
> used to accomplish those goals.
>
> A J
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't referring to your post, but to the deluge of carping on various
> > sites ever since Richard was found.
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > To you it's carping. To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role
> of
> > the society & its goals.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
> > pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> > > polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. There
> have
> > > been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> > > problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be
> the
> > > result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever
> > and
> > > 50.5% against? Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> > > unpleasant discussion we have had now? I suspect not. Some things are
> > > purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change
> > people's
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. For most of the
> > > years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
> > perfectly
> > > happy to let them get on with it. Now, all of a sudden, nothing they
> do
> > is
> > > right. They are working with the people they need to work with in
> order
> > to
> > > get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Perhaps they should
> be
> > > allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I
> was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> > III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society.
> Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
> the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> > this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have
> been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> > Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> > lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the
> issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard
> is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're
> not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to
> plan
> > a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this
> issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig
> fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> > looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented.
> Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> > faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Or like me, think I have stated it crystal clear, and only after hitting send, noticed a typing error, or spell check imp changed an entire word. Since I am a frequent bad typist, I rarely get upset my others. And are we not all entitled to our opinions?

On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Agree totally. This was shared recently on one of the Facebook pages --
>
> How to start an argument on the internet.
> (1) Express an opinion.
> (2) Wait.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> One of the perils of written communication - the writer is absolutely
>> clear about meaning, forgetting that the reader has a different reaction.
>> It's so much easier to pick up clues to meaning face-to-face }:
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> : A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>
>> Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying. And I should have said not so much the
>> goals of the society (which I believe are still pertinent) but the methods
>> used to accomplish those goals.
>>
>> A J
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
>> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wasn't referring to your post, but to the deluge of carping on various
>>> sites ever since Richard was found.
>>>
>>>
>>> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> To you it's carping. To me it's an opportunity to re-evaluate the role
>> of
>>> the society & its goals.
>>>
>>> A J
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
>>> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
>>>> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. There
>> have
>>>> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
>>>> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be
>> the
>>>> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever
>>> and
>>>> 50.5% against? Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
>>>> unpleasant discussion we have had now? I suspect not. Some things are
>>>> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change
>>> people's
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. For most of the
>>>> years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
>>> perfectly
>>>> happy to let them get on with it. Now, all of a sudden, nothing they
>> do
>>> is
>>>> right. They are working with the people they need to work with in
>> order
>>> to
>>>> get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Perhaps they should
>> be
>>>> allowed to continue, without constant carping.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
>>>> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I
>> was
>>>> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
>>> III
>>>> - don't get me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society.
>> Here's
>>>> what "we" say on "our" website
>>>>
>>>> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
>>>> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
>>>> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
>>>> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
>>>> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
>> the
>>>> role of this monarch in English history.
>>>>
>>>> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
>>> this
>>>> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
>>>> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>>>>
>>>> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
>>>> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have
>> been
>>>> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
>>>> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
>>> Leicester
>>>> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
>>> lot
>>>> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
>>>> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the
>> issue
>>>> ever discussed with the membership?)
>>>>
>>>> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard
>> is
>>>> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're
>> not
>>>> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
>>>> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
>>>> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to
>> plan
>>> a
>>>> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
>>>> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
>>>> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
>>>> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this
>> issue).
>>>>
>>>> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
>>>> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
>>>> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig
>> fell
>>>> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
>>> looks
>>>> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented.
>> Again,
>>>> people today expect to know more sooner.
>>>>
>>>> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
>>>> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
>>> faster
>>>> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>>>>
>>>> A J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I am with you on this, Christine - I have picked up on FB just how the "exec" responded to your concerns ... it's probably not wise if I attempt to voice what I think of that response...

I also agree with all of your excellent points, Draj - it is clear that even the exec were not of one mind on some of the key decisions made, and the membership (and public) have been left to go hang in everything concerning this incredible and hugely important year of dig and discovery. I think there are huge dangers in what is currently going forward, and certainly the Society does not appear (from what I pick up on FB) to be taking a certain proportion of their members with them - and many people who would naturally have joined the Society, are positively turning away.

The divisions are not good, but I am concerned as to how the Society will attempt to deal with them in a positive way that engages the membership, and makes the EC responsive to the membership as well.




--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello AJ, you couldn't have put things better and no the membership has not been consulted on anything from the very start of the search for Richard, only when money was needed for the dig to carry on.
> As a member of The Richard III Society I am disgusted at the lack of consultation with the members, we are always told that there is nothing to consult about or vote upon.
> Emailing a certain person high on the committee results in a pat on the head, go away and behave yourself . I personally have been treated like this as if I am some sort of ignorant un academic person.
> I'm afraid I see the present chair as a dictatorship as do many others.
> Rant over, but it makes me so mad that members are not consulted.
> I was always of the opinion that the EC was responsible to the members and not the other way round. I' afraid that Richard is the one that will suffer in all this.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:

the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?

There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.



--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
>
> The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hear, hear.

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM, colyngbourne <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
>
> the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has
> miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He*
> matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his
> legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If
> the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is
> crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they?
> When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
>
> There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in
> Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and
> utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did
> not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights,
> then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as
> a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just
> nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge
> <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of the
> years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly
> happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do
> is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with in
> order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps they
> should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ý
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan
> a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi

I think you were responding to me. I wasn't making a proposal, it was more a case of trying to think of alternative ways to get the message across especially in light of the dire Sunday evening drama and its impact in the media. On here a while back there was some discussion in regard to creating documents related to Richard, which some posters offered to do. There were a number of new members at that time some of whom were asking for background information. That was the basis for the suggestion. There were even suggestions that the articles could be posted on the Society's website. I do not know what the outcome was but as far as I know it did not happen. The reasoning behind it was to put forward the correct information as there was so much misinformation and negativity out there. At the moment it appears that some of the publicity i.e TV documentaries, TWQ have raised the profile but not necessarily in a positive way. This was the point I was trying to make in the earlier posts. I hope this clarifies the comments I made.
Elaine

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

Okay.

And I guess I started out sharing what I have discovered, somewhat to my
surprise, about what's already "out there" on-line, both on Society
websites & others. Which, however, despite its profusion, leaves me
unsatisfied since so much of it seems to be going nowhere. But I suppose
what comes across as venting or conversations of one-liners, may be
advancing the cause?

Which then led me on to thoughts of what would get us where we want to go -
which I take to be a general acknowledgement of accurate history about
Richard. I think the Society has really accomplished a great deal, but
it's been at a very slow pace.

That led to the next thought of whether there's a way to pick up the pace
to keep up with all the young internet-savvy people who are now showing an
interest in Richard.

I don't know the answer. Perhaps being more knowledgeable about what's
already available & where to send people to look for credible historical
information is part of it?

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:29 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi
>
> I think you were responding to me. I wasn't making a proposal, it was more
> a case of trying to think of alternative ways to get the message across
> especially in light of the dire Sunday evening drama and its impact in the
> media. On here a while back there was some discussion in regard to creating
> documents related to Richard, which some posters offered to do. There were
> a number of new members at that time some of whom were asking for
> background information. That was the basis for the suggestion. There were
> even suggestions that the articles could be posted on the Society's
> website. I do not know what the outcome was but as far as I know it did not
> happen. The reasoning behind it was to put forward the correct information
> as there was so much misinformation and negativity out there. At the moment
> it appears that some of the publicity i.e TV documentaries, TWQ have raised
> the profile but not necessarily in a positive way. This was the point I was
> trying to make in the earlier posts. I hope this clarifies the comments I
> made.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan
> a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

There does appear to be a group on FB, as draj mentions, within which they are forming some coherent buttress of information that can be used on principal topics about Ricardian matters that come up again and again in debate. I think although the open fb discussions can seem to go around in circles, and consist of one-liners occasionally (as draj mentioned) there is a very strong pull or general "cause" pro-Richard that is happening 'out there', unfortunately countered by an incredibly heavy-weight opposition that for ease, I would term "anti-Ricardian. Yes, there is belligerence and intransigeance but there is also encouraging interest, which does have results that I've witnessed personally.

Somehow the Society needs to be in all corners - with research, with media and publicity, but also in social media, robustly, but with encouragement and with transparency. From the internets, the public perception of the Society is very mixed.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I think you were responding to me. I wasn't making a proposal, it was more a case of trying to think of alternative ways to get the message across especially in light of the dire Sunday evening drama and its impact in the media. On here a while back there was some discussion in regard to creating documents related to Richard, which some posters offered to do. There were a number of new members at that time some of whom were asking for background information. That was the basis for the suggestion. There were even suggestions that the articles could be posted on the Society's website. I do not know what the outcome was but as far as I know it did not happen. The reasoning behind it was to put forward the correct information as there was so much misinformation and negativity out there. At the moment it appears that some of the publicity i.e TV documentaries, TWQ have raised the profile but not necessarily in a positive way. This was the point I was trying to make in the earlier posts. I hope this clarifies the comments I made.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello colyngbourne, thank you for your support, I am in agreement with what you say, if the members cannot speak now when can they speak.
A good number of persons are not joining the main society but are joining as associate members to branches over the country as they are not happy with some of the EC.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
>
> the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
>
> There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
>
> the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
>
> There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
>
> the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
>
> There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ý
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. Â There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? Â Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? Â I suspect not. Â Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. Â For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. Â Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. Â They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Â Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Â A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Best wishes for a uneventful surgery & speedy recovery.

A J


On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a
> very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and
> do good things.
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...
> <mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though
> I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has
> not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for
> example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact
> whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been
> completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I
> love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the
> right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has
> miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He*
> matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his
> legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If
> the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is
> crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they?
> When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in
> Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and
> utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did
> not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights,
> then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as
> a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just
> nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge
> <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. Â There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against? Â Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now? Â I suspect not. Â Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. Â For most of
> the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
> perfectly happy to let them get on with it. Â Now, all of a sudden, nothing
> they do is right. Â They are working with the people they need to work with
> in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Â Perhaps
> they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Â A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I
> was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society.
> Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
> the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have
> been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic,
> a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the
> issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard
> is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're
> not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to
> plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this
> issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig
> fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented.
> Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Thank you, so much. I was thinking, I am glad Dr. Jo is not my doctor. I was out of it, it is my right arm, I am typing with my left.....very slowly! Good news, I can read non-stop...... Love.



On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ý
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:16 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard@...>> wrote:



Best wishes for a uneventful surgery & speedy recovery.

A J

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a
> very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and
> do good things.
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>
> <mailto:eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though
> I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has
> not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for
> example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact
> whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been
> completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I
> love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the
> right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has
> miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He*
> matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his
> legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If
> the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is
> crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they?
> When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in
> Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and
> utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did
> not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights,
> then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as
> a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just
> nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Furmidge
> <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the
> polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have
> been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a
> problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the
> result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and
> 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes
> unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are
> purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's
> mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of
> the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been
> perfectly happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing
> they do is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with
> in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps
> they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ý
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I
> was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society.
> Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of
> the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have
> been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic,
> a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the
> issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard
> is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're
> not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to
> plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this
> issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig
> fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented.
> Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I heartily agree that the Society (whoever that may entail) have now been sidelined but prior to the dig, they were thoroughly involved. They have had a direct impact on the re-interment location from the off (and before the off) because they were negotiating with Leicester Cathedral in 2010 for that to be the location - that is both what I have heard and seen openly admitted in a letter sent by the Society to an enquirer about the "process". In 2010 the Society Exec (or the members of it dealing with Leicester) had already decided that Leicester was the place and were making carefully agreed arrangements with Dean Faull as to a table-tomb etc. This is not neutrality, and it is not what Richard would have wished for himself, imo.

With Dean Faull's promotion to York, the whole scenario changed for the "Society" involvement and influence; similarly with the TV situation. It was stipulated that no pictures would be taken of the king's remains - " This care includes no filming of his remains at any time whatsoever, and is in direct accordance and compliance with LCC's philosophy and practice on any discovery of human remains. "

That philosophy of LCC's is pretty loose...

The Society had the greatest influence in the location of Leicester, and could have polled their members long before the dig even began - easy enough if they were thinking about this in 2010 - plenty of time for both internet polls and snail-mail polls.

More importantly, no decision-making at all should have been conducted until after the announcement on Feb 4th - the process should have begun then: both Dr Lin Foxhall said this in November last year, and the Chair of APABE, and even Lynda Pidgeon presumed this would be the case.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I agree with you on your first point Colyngbourne...and how ironic it is that this whole thing would never have happened if it hadn't been for the Society who, it looks to me, now find that their input is not wanted or required, Phillipa Langley wrote an article in June's Bulletin "The Unsung Heroes of the Looking for Richard Project" which is "the story of five of the key players in the Looking for Richard Project who may not, until now have been properly named with regards to this historic project ". Phillipa goes on to name Dr JA-H, Dr Raymond J Bord, Dr David and Wendy Johnson, Annette Carson and Phil Stone and their input into the search which came precariously close to failure a few times.

With regard to the Society having decided from very early, 2010, that Leicester was to be the burial place...well that is wrong if that is the way of it. I had thought that it was a Government Department...I forget which one...stared that a body had to be reinterred as near to the spot of the original burial as possible. But...big but...IMHO...even if the Society had canvassed for votes from Members as to where Richard should be required and York had won the vote I think it would have mattered not. I've said this several times on here...I have not seen anything which looks as if York Minster were interested/wanted Richard's remains. Personally I would have loved to have seen Richard go to York but at the end of the day we are all little cogs in a massive wheel and I don't think the outcome would have been different. Maybe Im too negative here...maybe that comes from experience.

All we can hope for is that there is now going to be a suitable tomb. Frankly I just want to see him re-buried. It is shocking that he is lying somewhere in a cardboard box in unconsecrated ground. God! How many more experiments do they want to do on him...We know what we need to know already. I don't give a toss as to how far the curvature went....I know he was able to ride into battle and give a damn good fight until the end. This is absolutely atrocious....Our King needs to be required. As it is he is not even going to have a funeral....

Sorry have gone off on a tangent and had a little rant...feeling better now..Eileen





--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I heartily agree that the Society (whoever that may entail) have now been sidelined but prior to the dig, they were thoroughly involved. They have had a direct impact on the re-interment location from the off (and before the off) because they were negotiating with Leicester Cathedral in 2010 for that to be the location - that is both what I have heard and seen openly admitted in a letter sent by the Society to an enquirer about the "process". In 2010 the Society Exec (or the members of it dealing with Leicester) had already decided that Leicester was the place and were making carefully agreed arrangements with Dean Faull as to a table-tomb etc. This is not neutrality, and it is not what Richard would have wished for himself, imo.
>
> With Dean Faull's promotion to York, the whole scenario changed for the "Society" involvement and influence; similarly with the TV situation. It was stipulated that no pictures would be taken of the king's remains - " This care includes no filming of his remains at any time whatsoever, and is in direct accordance and compliance with LCC's philosophy and practice on any discovery of human remains. "
>
> That philosophy of LCC's is pretty loose...
>
> The Society had the greatest influence in the location of Leicester, and could have polled their members long before the dig even began - easy enough if they were thinking about this in 2010 - plenty of time for both internet polls and snail-mail polls.
>
> More importantly, no decision-making at all should have been conducted until after the announcement on Feb 4th - the process should have begun then: both Dr Lin Foxhall said this in November last year, and the Chair of APABE, and even Lynda Pidgeon presumed this would be the case.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> > >
> > > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> > >
> > > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied.  There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against?  Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now?  I suspect not.  Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > > >
> > > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time.  For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it.  Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right.  They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard.  Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > > - don't get me wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > > >
> > > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > > >
> > > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > > >
> > > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > > >
> > > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I am channeling my inner Cicely. She was a strong lady, I will try and be as strong and resolute.
All the comments about the Society are marvelous, but also make me very indignant that so many who have worked so long and for the spirit of King Richard III are just glossed over.
Must stop typing, took pain med and feel wonderful. Better living through Chemistry!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> >
> > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> >
> > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > >
> > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ý
> > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > - don't get me wrong.
> > >
> > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > >
> > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > >
> > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > >
> > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > >
> > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > >
> > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > >
> > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Poor you.  I can only sympathise.  I broke my ankle a couple of years ago and have a titanium plate.  It WILL get better but I know how you feel right now! 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 1 July 2013, 12:51
Subject: Re: Facebook, etc


I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
>
> the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
>
> There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. Â There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? Â Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? Â I suspect not. Â Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> >
> > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. Â For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. Â Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. Â They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Â Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > Â A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Pamela, FYI, I had a very bad spiral fracture of my humerus in November and was supposed to have surgery. It may be a little late to give you this info but the orthopedic surgeon instead decided on something called a Sarmiento brace which uses gravity to heal the break. This was in Chicago and when I got home my ortho here concurred. I wore it till the end of Feb and from all indications things have healed very well. I will be more than happy to give you any details if you want to email me. I hope all goes well,
Becky

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

> Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
> >
> > On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> > >
> > > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> > >
> > > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. Â There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? Â Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? Â I suspect not. Â Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > > >
> > > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. Â For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. Â Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. Â They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Â Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > > - don't get me wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > > >
> > > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > > >
> > > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > > >
> > > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > > >
> > > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Please do. My personal email is pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>. Information is the key to everything.
Thank you so much. Today is CT Scan.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:39 PM, "Rebecca Jacks" <missijacks@...<mailto:missijacks@...>> wrote:



Pamela, FYI, I had a very bad spiral fracture of my humerus in November and was supposed to have surgery. It may be a little late to give you this info but the orthopedic surgeon instead decided on something called a Sarmiento brace which uses gravity to heal the break. This was in Chicago and when I got home my ortho here concurred. I wore it till the end of Feb and from all indications things have healed very well. I will be more than happy to give you any details if you want to email me. I hope all goes well,
Becky

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
> >
> > On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> > >
> > > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> > >
> > > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. ý There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? ý Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? ý I suspect not. ý Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > > >
> > > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. ý For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. ý Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. ý They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. ý Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ý A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ý
> > > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > > - don't get me wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > > >
> > > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > > >
> > > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > > >
> > > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > > >
> > > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Pamela, sorry to be late in saying hope you get better soon. Have been darting in and out of this for a few minutes and then back to work. Take care H.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2013, 10:58
Subject: Re: Facebook, etc


Please do. My personal email is pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>. Information is the key to everything.
Thank you so much. Today is CT Scan.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:39 PM, "Rebecca Jacks" <missijacks@...<mailto:missijacks@...>> wrote:



Pamela, FYI, I had a very bad spiral fracture of my humerus in November and was supposed to have surgery. It may be a little late to give you this info but the orthopedic surgeon instead decided on something called a Sarmiento brace which uses gravity to heal the break. This was in Chicago and when I got home my ortho here concurred. I wore it till the end of Feb and from all indications things have healed very well. I will be more than happy to give you any details if you want to email me. I hope all goes well,
Becky

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> Oh dear Pamela....get well soon and come back as soon as you can...you will be missed Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree as well. I will be out of the loop for a while. I fell and have a very bad break on upper left arm, which will require surgery. Carry on and do good things.
> >
> > On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Colyngbourne...an excellent post and straight from the heart. Even though I don't agree with the point some posters are making about the Society has not done enough or kept the members in touch with what is happening...for example I cannot think of how the Society could have had any impact whatsoever on where Richard is to be reinterred as they have been completely sidelines by the authorities which is diabolical but a fact,...I love your passion and concern and you keep 'carping' on....you have the right.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a reason why people - members - are suddenly speaking up:
> > >
> > > the king - our king - the reason for which the Society exists - has miraculously, suddenly, and against all expectation, been found. *He* matters - not just his reputation, not just his history, not just his legacy - actually his human remains matter - so they should, absolutely. If the members of the Society can't suddenly step up and say "this is crucially important" when their lost king is found, then when can they? When would they be consulted, ever, if not on this matter?
> > >
> > > There are dozens of thousands of people who think the re-interment in Leicester is utterly wrong, utterly against everything about Richard and utterly against the principles of our nation's burial traditions. If I did not "carp" at this moment, for this cause, for this king and his rights, then I would never forgive myself and personally would not regard myself as a Ricardian any more than if I gave up the fight on his reputation and just nodded when people tell me he killed the princes and usurped the throne.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Society has a difficult path to tread, particularly with the polarisation of views as to where Richard should be reburied. Â There have been a lot of complaints about the lack of consultation, but there is a problem with consulation - what constitutes a majority. What would be the result if a consultation had resulted in a 49.5% in favour of whatever and 50.5% against? Â Would that prevent the kind of heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion we have had now? Â I suspect not. Â Some things are purely emotive, and no amount of logical argument will ever change people's mind.
> > > >
> > > > The Committee put in a lot of work, in their own time. Â For most of the years I have been a member, the rest of the membership have been perfectly happy to let them get on with it. Â Now, all of a sudden, nothing they do is right. Â They are working with the people they need to work with in order to get the best possible reburial to honour Richard. Â Perhaps they should be allowed to continue, without constant carping.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > > > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > > > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > > > - don't get me wrong.
> > > >
> > > > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > > > what "we" say on "our" website
> > > >
> > > > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > > > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > > > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > > > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > > > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > > > role of this monarch in English history.
> > > >
> > > > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > > > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > > > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > > > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > > > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > > > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > > > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > > > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > > > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > > > ever discussed with the membership?)
> > > >
> > > > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > > > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > > > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > > > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > > > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > > > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > > > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > > > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > > > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > > > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > > > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > > > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > > > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > > > people today expect to know more sooner.
> > > >
> > > > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > > > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > > > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>











------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)


Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and counter-protest.
Marie



>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).


The digitalisation of The Ricardian is on the agenda, of course, but will take time. Are you volunteering? Even past issues are very easily accessible to members, though, through sales of Back Issues and the Barton Library.
Marie





>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.

Hilary, I don't know if you've signed up for the e-newsletters, which are coming quite frequently now.
Marie


>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J


This is unfair. The Society officers, committee members, librarians and all have been snowed under these last few months. If it is to go faster more volunteers are needed.
Marie



>

The membership of the Society who pay their dues every year: who in the matter of the re-burial of the king, whose Society is it, might have been consulted. And if the poll had come to one conclusion or another, then that is democracy - no-one complains about the tyranny of the majority when other votes are held.

And York Minster have not actually said they don't want him - their current statement is that "The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's re-interment, based on the current legal position." That is carefully neutral. And given that the Dean of York was Dean of Leicester until last December, the Chapter have been in a difficult position anyway, and have avoided any unseemly battling over the remains. Should the legal position re the remains change, then I imagine York Minster would be happy to host the re-interment. I agree that there has probably been lots of quiet diplomacy but not enough - there were encouragements and requests for more but these were not taken up by certain authorities.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

>
>
> Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and counter-protest.
> Marie

Not guilty Marie, it's AJ not HJ. Cheers H :)



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: Facebook, etc

 



--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> - don't get me wrong.
>
> But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> what "we" say on "our" website
>
> In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> role of this monarch in English history.
>
>
> This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
>
> (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> ever discussed with the membership?)

Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and counter-protest.
Marie

>
> (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).

The digitalisation of The Ricardian is on the agenda, of course, but will take time. Are you volunteering? Even past issues are very easily accessible to members, though, through sales of Back Issues and the Barton Library.
Marie

>
> (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> people today expect to know more sooner.

Hilary, I don't know if you've signed up for the e-newsletters, which are coming quite frequently now.
Marie

>
> I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
>
> A J

This is unfair. The Society officers, committee members, librarians and all have been snowed under these last few months. If it is to go faster more volunteers are needed.
Marie

>

I don't mean to cast aspersions on the volunteer efforts, but was stating
my perception, that even with the best will in the world, in fact the
Society was falling behind.

A J


On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Not guilty Marie, it's AJ not HJ. Cheers H :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 18:33
> Subject: Re: Facebook, etc
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard
> III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in
> this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in
> Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a
> lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even
> if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people
> strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The
> danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being
> vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I
> believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I
> imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been
> privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and
> counter-protest.
> Marie
>
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan
> a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> The digitalisation of The Ricardian is on the agenda, of course, but will
> take time. Are you volunteering? Even past issues are very easily
> accessible to members, though, through sales of Back Issues and the Barton
> Library.
> Marie
>
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now
> looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> Hilary, I don't know if you've signed up for the e-newsletters, which are
> coming quite frequently now.
> Marie
>
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot
> faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
>
> This is unfair. The Society officers, committee members, librarians and
> all have been snowed under these last few months. If it is to go faster
> more volunteers are needed.
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next.

>...the poll would go in favour of the Society being
> vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I
> believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I
> imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been
> privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and
> counter-protest.
> Marie

Dear Members,

It appears to me that the Mayor of Leicester has outmaneuvered everyone
in making the burial at St. Martin's (the Cathedral) nearly a fait accompli.
Marie, my impression is also that York Minster officials were initially fine with the proposed Leicester burial
and the powers that be in York were a bit slow to enter this fray, so to speak. The thing that
caused a change in thinking or stirred up the hornets nest, it appeared, seemed to be the reluctance
of the Cathedral officials in their earlier report to have the raised tomb plus their concern over the controversy
surrounding the reputation of King Richard III.
Cheers,
V

And by not moving forward, may have lost any chance of getting the king's remains. Their position is reactive. Leicester is in motion, cementing their position with plans and construction.


-----Original Message-----
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: Facebook, etc






The membership of the Society who pay their dues every year: who in the matter of the re-burial of the king, whose Society is it, might have been consulted. And if the poll had come to one conclusion or another, then that is democracy - no-one complains about the tyranny of the majority when other votes are held.

And York Minster have not actually said they don't want him - their current statement is that "The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's re-interment, based on the current legal position." That is carefully neutral. And given that the Dean of York was Dean of Leicester until last December, the Chapter have been in a difficult position anyway, and have avoided any unseemly battling over the remains. Should the legal position re the remains change, then I imagine York Minster would be happy to host the re-interment. I agree that there has probably been lots of quiet diplomacy but not enough - there were encouragements and requests for more but these were not taken up by certain authorities.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

>
>
> Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and counter-protest.
> Marie

Sorry, Hilary. Got the wrong J (must clean glasses).
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Not guilty Marie, it's AJ not HJ. Cheers H :)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 18:33
> Subject: Re: Facebook, etc
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > My post in response to the proposal for another Richard-related website
> > feels unfinished - I guess because I myself wasn't sure what point I was
> > trying to make. There's certainly room for more websites about Richard III
> > - don't get me wrong.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about the role of the Richard III Society. Here's
> > what "we" say on "our" website
> >
> > In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the
> > character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient
> > evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every
> > possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to
> > secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the
> > role of this monarch in English history.
> >
> >
> > This is still true, and the society has certainly made many efforts in this
> > direction, & should continue to do so. But I think we're struggling to
> > adjust to a new paradigm, & are failing in that.
> >
> > (1) Despite providing the impetus & the initial funding that made the
> > discovery of Richard's remains possible, the society appears to have been
> > outmanoeuvred badly on what happens next. Then, because the society
> > (leadership) appears to believe that working with the entities in Leicester
> > (no public controversy, please) is better than becoming antagonistic, a lot
> > of discussion & energy regarding Richard's cause has gone elsewhere. (I
> > don't necessarily disagree with the society's decision, but was the issue
> > ever discussed with the membership?)
>
> Which membership? There were many view amongst Society members, and even if a poll had been taken the outcome would have been seen by people strongly committed to an opposing view as the tyranny of the majority. The danger would be that the poll would go in favour of the Society being vociferous in favour of York Minster, which doesn't actually want him. I believe there has been a lot of quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, and I imagine this has involved more than one set of people, but I have not been privy. Quiet diplomacy can't go on in the glare of publicity and counter-protest.
> Marie
>
> >
> > (2) Much of the society's sponsored good research & writing on Richard is
> > buried in a largely-inaccessible journal (The Ricardian). Again we're not
> > keeping up - this material should be widely & freely available
> > electronically to the new audience. And given the commercial attitude
> > exhibited by the entities in Leicester, is it really appropriate to plan a
> > research facility in partnership with them? (Personally, I'd vote no on
> > that question, in part because it appears to me to be one more way of
> > capitalizing on Richard's death, rather than celebrating his life, but
> > again has the membership been involved in any discussion on this issue).
>
> The digitalisation of The Ricardian is on the agenda, of course, but will take time. Are you volunteering? Even past issues are very easily accessible to members, though, through sales of Back Issues and the Barton Library.
> Marie
>
> >
> > (3) Communication has been relatively poor (certainly slow) between the
> > society's leadership & its membership, except, I gather, for Philippa's
> > request for more money when part of the initial funding for the dig fell
> > through & except for the fund-raising for the tomb, which design now looks
> > like having a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented. Again,
> > people today expect to know more sooner.
>
> Hilary, I don't know if you've signed up for the e-newsletters, which are coming quite frequently now.
> Marie
>
> >
> > I realize we're a volunteer society, that there are many opinions
> > represented, & change takes time. BUT, things are just moving a lot faster
> > now, & this in this unique period, the society is being left behind.
> >
> > A J
>
> This is unfair. The Society officers, committee members, librarians and all have been snowed under these last few months. If it is to go faster more volunteers are needed.
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>