Yorkshire Post article

Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349

Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349

Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.

I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.

Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen



--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
>
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>" <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
>
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>

David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
best Wishes
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
>
> I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
>
> Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> >
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
>

To me it implies that the University folks think they own Richard's remains & can do with them what they wish.
A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
 

Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.

I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.

Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
>
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>" <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
>
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>

I think so too AJ....I am really beginning to get hot under the collar about this ongoing attitude the Uni has towards Richard's remains...These people are so arrogant. Is it beyond their ken that these are the remains of a human being.... not to mention an annointed king... and not some kind of ongoing experiment and need to be treated with respect. What would Richard or any of his family think about these ongoing antics I hate to think. To be truthful....with hindsight... I feel it was a big mistake to get the University involved in the discovery of Richard's remains. Would they like to see the remains of a member of their family treated in this way. I don't think so. I now wonder how things would have gone if the Time Team had taken on the dig. If I recall they did not think they would have had the time it may have taken. We now know that Richard was found almost immediately. However we are where we are and Richard has ended up in the hands of people who seem to lack even basic sensitivity. It's enough to make you weep.

Of course it's wonderful that Richard has been found but I can't help but feel he's being treated in the way he was in real life...it's a kind of betrayal. And where are the Royal Family in this...their silence on these matters is deafening... Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> To me it implies that the University folks think they own Richard's remains
> & can do with them what they wish.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the
> > tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God
> > Bless David and Wendy
> > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someone's remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be only for the money'. I'm afraid the university's behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. Sandra =^..^= From: christineholmes651@... Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
best Wishes
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
>
> I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
>
> Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> >
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
>

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someone’s remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be ‘only for the money’.
>
> I’m afraid the university’s behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>
> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> best Wishes
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
>

I do so agree - it is frankly horrible. Did they do this with the Romanovs? And, annointed king or not, how would most of us feel about the remains of our ancestors being subjected to display, poking and prying? Have our current Royal Family totally disowned him, though apparently not the unidentified bones in the urn? H.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:08
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâ¬"s remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be â¬Üonly for the moneyâ¬".
>
> Iâ¬"m afraid the universityâ¬"s behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>
> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> best Wishes
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
>

Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someone’s remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be ‘only for the money’.
>
> I’m afraid the university’s behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>
> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> best Wishes
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
>

I know the Crown has demurred to get into the fray. But honestly, I cannot understand why a former King of England, no matter what anyone thinks he did or did not do, cannot be treated as Royalty. I am baffled.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EILEEN BATES
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I think so too AJ....I am really beginning to get hot under the collar about this ongoing attitude the Uni has towards Richard's remains...These people are so arrogant. Is it beyond their ken that these are the remains of a human being.... not to mention an annointed king... and not some kind of ongoing experiment and need to be treated with respect. What would Richard or any of his family think about these ongoing antics I hate to think. To be truthful....with hindsight... I feel it was a big mistake to get the University involved in the discovery of Richard's remains. Would they like to see the remains of a member of their family treated in this way. I don't think so. I now wonder how things would have gone if the Time Team had taken on the dig. If I recall they did not think they would have had the time it may have taken. We now know that Richard was found almost immediately. However we are where we are and Richard has ended up in the hands of people who seem to lack even basic sensitivity. It's enough to make you weep.

Of course it's wonderful that Richard has been found but I can't help but feel he's being treated in the way he was in real life...it's a kind of betrayal. And where are the Royal Family in this...their silence on these matters is deafening... Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> To me it implies that the University folks think they own Richard's remains
> & can do with them what they wish.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the
> > tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God
> > Bless David and Wendy
> > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
>
> Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>
> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> best Wishes
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
>

I do agree with you Sandra....and although I have no strong feelings on the matter about where more how Richard is reinterred. I do not blame anyone with strong feelings on the matter attempting to do something about it. My anger is directed at the University who frankly seem to be treating the remains with as much feeling as if they were a can of baked beans...I can recall feeling quite uneasy when Dr Appleby seemed to think it rather amusing that she had just whacked a big hole in King Richard's skull with what looked to me like a pickaxe. Anyone else in another profession on making such an error would have got their P45.

The truth is evident now. The remains for whatever reasons have ended up in the wrong hands. I can think of no one else say maybe Tutankhamun who has received this kind of callous and intrusive treatment. Human remains seem on the whole to be treated with deference, love and care in every society/religion in the world. Whatever your opinions on the matter Westminster Abbey remains unwavering in its stance that the bones in the urn are not up for disturbing. Why should Richard be treated in this off-hand way. His remains should never have remained in the University's keeping. I trust them not!
Eileen



--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
> Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someone’s remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be ‘only for the money’.
> >
> > I’m afraid the university’s behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > From: christineholmes651@
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> > best Wishes
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > >
> > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> > >
> > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic.  This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
 

That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.  What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
  Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.   Sandra =^..^=   From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article    
Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
>
> Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>
> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.
> best Wishes
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> >
> > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box.
> >
> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!
> > >
> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> >
>

Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

Like you, Eileen, I fear he is on a laboratory shelf. They are such philistines, he's probably in your dreaded cardboard box, between a mammoth tusk and a collection of mummies' teeth from the Upper Nile. He'll be casually labelled Remains from Car Park', but who cares? He's only a King of England. The trouble is that when he was alive he would probably have been merciful toward them. He never did sever enough heads from necks. =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:41 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
A JOn Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:37 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

The only criterion should not be whatever is the most pragmatic solution (that's what I intended to say).  We're not going to get the chance for a "re-do" any time soon.
We're never going to agree on this issue & passions only seem to rise, so I will once again attempt to keep my mouth shut, after repeating that I do not believe Leicester to be the appropriate final resting place for Richard. In the beginning I had no opinion, but the arguments that convinced me I first read here, & the statement of Dave & Wendy Johnson confirms what some of us have suspected for some time - that the parties who have claimed possession of Richard's remains do not have the same interests as many of us.
A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
 

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion  of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.   Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.   Sandra =^..^=   From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article    

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
  From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
  Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic.  This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.   A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:   That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.   What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
  Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.   Sandra =^..^=   From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article     Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:>> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra> =^..^=> From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM> To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.> best Wishes> Christine> Loyaulte me Lie> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:> >> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen> > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:> > >> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie> > > Christine> > >> >>

Hey, no need to keep your mouth shut, AJ, we can all state our opinions, yes? My passions aren't rising (heaven forbid) and I more than respect anyone's right to say what they think. My gripe is with UofL, not with the cathedral, York, or anyone else, although I do have reservations about the Alliance's right' to pronounce upon anything. But I don't want to fall out with you about that. <g> Sandra =^..^= From: A J Hibbard Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:48 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

The only criterion should not be whatever is the most pragmatic solution (that's what I intended to say). We're not going to get the chance for a "re-do" any time soon. We're never going to agree on this issue & passions only seem to rise, so I will once again attempt to keep my mouth shut, after repeating that I do not believe Leicester to be the appropriate final resting place for Richard. In the beginning I had no opinion, but the arguments that convinced me I first read here, & the statement of Dave & Wendy Johnson confirms what some of us have suspected for some time - that the parties who have claimed possession of Richard's remains do not have the same interests as many of us. A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:>> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra> =^..^=> From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM> To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.> best Wishes> Christine> Loyaulte me Lie> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:> >> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen> > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:> > >> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie> > > Christine> > >> >>

Hello, I'm trying to pick up on emails after a short stay in Rouen.

There was a short sequence of messages on the topic of Richard's burial regarding burial in multiple locations. Rouen Cathedral gives an example of which I was not aware. It houses a tomb containing the heart of Richard I of England.

Regards

David


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Sent: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 3:41:03 PM

 

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^=     From: SandraMachin Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:37 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article    

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion  of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.   Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.   Sandra =^..^=   From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article    

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
  From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
  Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic.  This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.   A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:   That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.   What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
  Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.   Sandra =^..^=   From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article     Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

It was on the BBC News tonight. Leicester has had a Press Conference saying it intends to spend £1m on his Swaledale stone tomb (in concession to his Yorks heritage) and £1bn on revamping the Cathedral. BUT they were at pains to say it's not over yet. AJ, like Sandra it's not about what I think (which is actually York) but who in the end has the power. Life was ever so. I think we all agree really. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:57
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Hey, no need to keep your mouth shut, AJ, we can all state our opinions, yes? My passions aren't rising (heaven forbid) and I more than respect anyone's right to say what they think. My gripe is with UofL, not with the cathedral, York, or anyone else, although I do have reservations about the Alliance's right' to pronounce upon anything. But I don't want to fall out with you about that. <g> Sandra =^..^= From: A J Hibbard Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:48 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article The only criterion should not be whatever is the most pragmatic solution (that's what I intended to say). We're not going to get the chance for a "re-do" any time soon. We're never going to agree on this issue & passions only seem to rise, so I will once again attempt to keep my mouth shut, after repeating that I do not believe Leicester to be the appropriate final resting place for Richard. In the beginning I had no opinion, but the arguments that convinced me I first read here, & the statement of Dave & Wendy Johnson confirms what some of us have suspected for some time - that the parties who have claimed possession of Richard's remains do not have the same interests as many of us. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32 Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:>> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra> =^..^=> From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM> To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.> best Wishes> Christine> Loyaulte me Lie> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:> >> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen> > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:> > >> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie> > > Christine> > >> >>

I saw that Hilary...when the newsreader said 'he may be moved again '...I thought for a moment they meant about the UNi insisting that he can be exhumed at a future date ...I thought Oh good this will make the general public aware of these vile plans..but it was only about the York v Leicester debate. Doh....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was on the BBC News tonight. Leicester has had a Press Conference saying it intends to spend £1m on his Swaledale stone tomb (in concession to his Yorks heritage) and £1bn on revamping the Cathedral. BUT they were at pains to say it's not over yet.  AJ, like Sandra it's not about what I think (which is actually York) but who in the end has the power. Life was ever so. I think we all agree really. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:57
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>  
>
> Hey, no need to keep your mouth shut, AJ, we can all state our opinions,
> yes? My passions aren’t rising (heaven forbid) and I more than respect anyone’s
> right to say what they think. My gripe is with UofL, not with the cathedral,
> York, or anyone else, although I do have reservations about the Alliance’s
> ‘right’ to pronounce upon anything. But I don’t want to fall out with you about
> that. <g>
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: A J Hibbard
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:48 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post
> article
>
>  
> The only
> criterion should not be whatever is the most pragmatic solution (that's what I
> intended to say).  We're not going to get the chance for a "re-do" any time
> soon.
>
> We're never
> going to agree on this issue & passions only seem to rise, so I will once
> again attempt to keep my mouth shut, after repeating that I do not believe
> Leicester to be the appropriate final resting place for Richard. In the
> beginning I had no opinion, but the arguments that convinced me I first read
> here, & the statement of Dave & Wendy Johnson confirms what some of us
> have suspected for some time - that the parties who have claimed possession of
> Richard's remains do not have the same interests as many of us.
>
> A
> J
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > 
> >But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion  of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
> >
> >Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it, what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
> >
> >Sandra
> >=^..^=
> >
> >
> >From: Hilary Jones
> >Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > 
> >I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> > 
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> >Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > 
> >Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic.  This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> >A J
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >>That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
> >> 
> >>What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >>
> >>From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> >>To:
> >>Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> >>Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >>
> >>Sandra
> >>=^..^=
> >>
> >>
> >>From: EILEEN BATES
> >>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> >>To:
> >>Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:>> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >>> > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra> =^..^=> From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM> To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.> best Wishes> Christine> Loyaulte me Lie> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:> >> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen> > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:> > >> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide!> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
> <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie> > > Christine> > >> >>
>

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.

Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.

But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.


> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jonathan



From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article


I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.

Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

I think Philippa Langley issued a statement some months ago saying that the remains had been moved to somewhere quiet and contemplative, but it was very vague and I would expect the location to be highly confidential.

Jonathan


From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

You know all these people have been cashing in on Richard by writing articles; even Hicks has come out of the woodwork and written something fairly reasonable (for him) but not one person has picked up a pen to point out the shameful treatment of human remains. I would have thought his relations in the Alliance should have been the first to shout about this? H.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

Well I suppose a safe is quiet?:) If you think about it, it would have to be secure. They couldn't risk losing the body again or sending it for cremation by mistake, could they? Or risk the odd student prank.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:56
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
I think Philippa Langley issued a statement some months ago saying that the remains had been moved to somewhere quiet and contemplative, but it was very vague and I would expect the location to be highly confidential. Jonathan

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry? Eileen --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote: > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. > > A J > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where > > they envisaged being buried. > > > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H. > > > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> > > *To:* > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38 > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > ** > > > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. > > > > Sandra > > =^..^= > > > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM > > *To:* > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen > > --- In , "SandraMachin" > > <sandramachin@> wrote: > > > > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > > > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > > > > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more > > disgusted I get. > > > > > > Sandra > > > =^..^= > > > From: christineholmes651@ > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it > > on please. > > > best Wishes > > > Christine > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" > > <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf > > in a cardboard box. > > > > > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it > > up. Eileen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns > > the tide! > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto: > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. > > God Bless David and Wendy > > > > > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > >

Well, the University Chapel wouldn't be a secure location and, as you said, we really wouldn't want any Jeremy Bentham style pranks.

But we genuinely don't know where he is, nor under what conditions. UoL hasn't done itself any favours with as a corporate entity, but I think it would be a shame to get into the binary opposites position of everything UoL bad / everything else good. Not least because individual members of staff are *not* the university. For instance, I've come face-to-face with Turi King and found her immensely likeable. A relative of mine has said the same about Richard Buckley.

I'm not certain that the Towton soldiers were treated with any greater respect and I'd argue that all should be treated equally. Actually, if you want examples of significantly less respect, I'd cite the Mary Rose sailors. I was genuinely taken aback by that.

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:49
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?

Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > >
> > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> >
> > >
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > disgusted I get.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > on please.
> > > best Wishes
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > >
> > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > in a cardboard box.
> > > >
> > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > up. Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > Christine
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

I totally agree with AJ on this Sandra.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The only criterion should not be whatever is the most pragmatic solution
> (that's what I intended to say). We're not going to get the chance for a
> "re-do" any time soon.
>
> We're never going to agree on this issue & passions only seem to rise, so I
> will once again attempt to keep my mouth shut, after repeating that I do
> not believe Leicester to be the appropriate final resting place for
> Richard. In the beginning I had no opinion, but the arguments that
> convinced me I first read here, & the statement of Dave & Wendy Johnson
> confirms what some of us have suspected for some time - that the parties
> who have claimed possession of Richard's remains do not have the same
> interests as many of us.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a
> > few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but
> > unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the
> > opinion of `descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance
> > don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to
> > share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is
> > NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this.
> > Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour
> > him.
> >
> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about
> > this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that
> > I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning
> > his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross
> > and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else
> > was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the
> > judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could
> > be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> >
> > **
> > *From:* A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > *To:* "" <
> > >
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> > ****
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:*
> > *
> >
> > **
> >
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician
> > I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do
> > with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic
> > 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where
> > the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over
> > 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever
> > reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth
> > soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they
> > envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
> > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> > *To:*
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > **
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > *To:*
> > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > **
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen**---
> > In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote:**>**
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. **> **>
> > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of
> > modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > **> **> Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the
> > more disgusted I get. **> **> Sandra**> =^..^=**> From:
> > christineholmes651@ **> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM**>
> > To: **> Subject: [Richard III
> > Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article**> **> **> David and Wendy want
> > as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please.**> best
> > Wishes**> Christine**> Loyaulte me Lie**> **> --- In
> > , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@>
> > wrote:**> >**> > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I
> > am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who
> > should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni
> > wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault
> > ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their
> > head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are
> > people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. **> > **> > I
> > once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco
> > continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a
> > cardboard box. **> > **> > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to
> > this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have
> > been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the
> > scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the
> > Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his
> > remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short
> > pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen**> > **> > **> > **> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > **> > >**> > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of
> > censure turns the tide!**> > > **> > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM,
> > "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@
> > <mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote:**> > > **> > > **> > > **> > > Don't
> > know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless
> > David and Wendy**> > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > ** > > > **> > > Loyaulte me Lie**> > > Christine**> > >**> >**>****
> > ****
> >
> > **
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
>

OK, Christine. =^..^= From: christineholmes651@... Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:09 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I totally agree with AJ on this Sandra.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Sandra wrote: I agree, Kay. Sandra =^..^= From: kjw414 Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:14 AM To: Subject: Richard and Leicester

Hi to everyone. I've been following this forum for several months but have never posted. My name is Kay Wade, and I live in California. I've long be interested in the Plantagenets, and Richard in particular. Of course I have no vote in what happens to Richard, but I'm pulling for Leicester. I understand sentimental feelings about York, but I suspect that once he became king he'd have expected to end up in Westminster or Windsor.

Leicester Cathedral has an established connection to Richard. They've had a memorial to him since 1980, when a large tablet was placed in the chancel floor. They keep a portrait of Richard nearby. Every year they host a memorial service on the Sunday nearest to August 22.

They have come up with a stunning design for the tomb. As it happens, the cathedral has for years been planning major renovation. It's only because they were already planning major changes to the fabric of the cathedral that they were able to adapt the plans to create a special space for Richard's tomb.

The memorial is quite elegant and is prominently located in the heart of the cathedral. The Dean of Leicester Cathedral discusses the plans in a video that can be accessed from the cathedral website. (On the homepage, just below the welcome from the Dean, there's a heading "Latest News." The second heading below that is "A Video Update from the Dean." He speaks very respectfully of Richard and talks about the honor of providing the final resting place for the king. The website also provides sketches of how the proposed memorial will look in place in the cathedral. It's very beautiful.

The situation is a bit tentative because the court case isn't settled yet. However, a major project like preparing a tomb and a memorial service for a king can't be thrown together at the last minute. They've had to start work while keeping their fingers crossed that their efforts won't go in vain. As I said, I'm pulling for Leicester. York Minster is so spectacular that any one tomb can get overwhelmed by all the surrounding splendor. On the other hand, Leicester is planning an elegant memorial, has commissioned two stained glass windows, and is developing an educational area with information on his life. As I mentioned, they've been honoring him for over thirty years.

The cathedral grounds are being re-landscaped, and the city of Leicester plans to move their statue of Richard to the new Cathedral Gardens. Just across the Gardens from the cathedral there will be access to the city's new Richard III museum. All of this will provide a good opportunity for visitors to see Richard's story told in a respectful way. The museum will naturally charge a fee, but there will be no charge for access to the cathedral or to Cathedral Gardens.

Leicester plans a whole week of activities leading up to the memorial service, and the Richard III Society will be planning some of the events. Early in the week Richard's coffin will be formally received at the cathedral by the Dean. Richard will then lie in state for several days while people have an opportunity to pay their respects. The cathedral has commissioned a textile artist to design and create a pall to cover the coffin.

The Franciscans would have conducted a requiem mass for Richard at the time of his burial, but it was necessarily a low-key event. This time round Leicester Cathedral is planning a service suitable for a king – high-ranking clergy, fancy vestments, organ, choir, royalty, government officials – all the trappings. It comes rather late, of course, but the timing is good. A lot of people are now open to taking a new look at Richard's story.

I think Leicester's plans for the cathedral historic area will provide a wonderful opportunity for people to get a new view of Richard. And from listening to the Dean speak about the king and about the sanctity of Christian burial, I can't imagine the cathedral will allow access to Richard's body once he's safely reinterred. I don't think the University's appalling conduct should counter the fact that Leicester Cathedral has an established history of honoring Richard and treating him with respect and that they are planning an elegant memorial that is very prominently located in the church. I'm inclined to think that Leicester museum/cathedral/garden combination provides a wonderful opportunity for people to learn about Richard.

Greetings to all,

Kay Wade

.

Yes I know someone who knows Richard Buckley and says he's a good chap. I agree with most of what you say but perhaps its the delay and the fact that he was an annointed King which makes it all rather obscene. I couldn't imagine them doing the same with say, Queen Anne. Didn't Cambridge students also steal Cromwell's skull?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 11:53
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Well, the University Chapel wouldn't be a secure location and, as you said, we really wouldn't want any Jeremy Bentham style pranks. But we genuinely don't know where he is, nor under what conditions. UoL hasn't done itself any favours with as a corporate entity, but I think it would be a shame to get into the binary opposites position of everything UoL bad / everything else good. Not least because individual members of staff are *not* the university. For instance, I've come face-to-face with Turi King and found her immensely likeable. A relative of mine has said the same about Richard Buckley. I'm not certain that the Towton soldiers were treated with any greater respect and I'd argue that all should be treated equally. Actually, if you want examples of significantly less respect, I'd cite the Mary Rose sailors. I was genuinely taken aback by that. Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:49
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry? Eileen --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote: > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. > > A J > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where > > they envisaged being buried. > > > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H. > > > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> > > *To:* > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38 > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > ** > > > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. > > > > Sandra > > =^..^= > > > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM > > *To:* > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen > > --- In , "SandraMachin" > > <sandramachin@> wrote: > > > > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > > > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > > > > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more > > disgusted I get. > > > > > > Sandra > > > =^..^= > > > From: christineholmes651@ > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it > > on please. > > > best Wishes > > > Christine > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" > > <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf > > in a cardboard box. > > > > > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it > > up. Eileen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns > > the tide! > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto: > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. > > God Bless David and Wendy > > > > > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > >

They are too busy with this incessant wrangling about where he should be buried...fine...but I think it is of great import where he is lying in the meantime. As for the diabolical intention of the Uni that they should be allowed access to his remains in the future...this is beyond belief and I hope if and when it rears it's ugly head the Alliance, Ricardians and the general public will make their outrage known loud and clear. The Uni must not be allowed to to do...it's absolutely shocking. I feel absolutely sick every time I think about it. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  You know all these people have been cashing in on Richard by writing articles; even Hicks has come out of the woodwork and written something fairly reasonable (for him) but not one person has picked up a pen to point out the shameful treatment of human remains. I would have thought his relations in the Alliance should have been the first to shout about this? H.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>  
>
> Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?
>
> Eileen
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > > they envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > *To:*
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > **
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > > *To:*
> > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > > >
> > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > > disgusted I get.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > > =^..^=
> > > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > > on please.
> > > > best Wishes
> > > > Christine
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > > in a cardboard box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > > up. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > > the tide!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > > >
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Christine
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Ironically, the delay and surrounding circus is probably only *because* he was an anointed king...

There's a Towton skeleton on display at Bosworth. I'd assumed it was a vac-formed replica (probably is), but after seeing the Mary Rose exhibition I had a moment of doubt. The Chief Exec there is a Rear Admiral, but nevertheless happy with the display of human remains belonging to his predecessors in service 500 years ago. It suggests that there's been a shift in attitudes to such things that I found entirely unexpected (and maybe it's cyclical - one thinks of medieval death rituals or someone nicking one of Charles I's neck vertebrae - and our relative squeamishness comes on the back of two world wars). So, if there ever was any tentative thought of displaying Richard's remains, I can sort of see where it came from.

He's lucky that that's not happening - and it's only not happening because of his royal status. Right outcome, but for the wrong reasons. If we can identify with Richard as a real person, we can identify just as much with the Master Carpenter of the Mary Rose. We might not know *his* name, but we can see his reconstructed face, know exactly how he died and see his belongings scattered around. All this gives as rich a sense of a life as a chronicle source, if not more so.

The ethical waters are getting muddier and, suddenly, I can see why the Queen is so resistant to any further examination of bones at Westminster Abbey - something that, ironically (hypocritically?), most of us would welcome.

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 12:30
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Yes I know someone who knows Richard Buckley and says he's a good chap. I agree with most of what you say but perhaps its the delay and the fact that he was an annointed King which makes it all rather obscene. I couldn't imagine them doing the same with say, Queen Anne. Didn't Cambridge students also steal Cromwell's skull?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 11:53
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Well, the University Chapel wouldn't be a secure location and, as you said, we really wouldn't want any Jeremy Bentham style pranks. But we genuinely don't know where he is, nor under what conditions. UoL hasn't done itself any favours with as a corporate entity, but I think it would be a shame to get into the binary opposites position of everything UoL bad / everything else good. Not least because individual members of staff are *not* the university. For instance, I've come face-to-face with Turi King and found her immensely likeable. A relative of mine has said the same about Richard Buckley. I'm not certain that the Towton soldiers were treated with any greater respect and I'd argue that all should be treated equally. Actually, if you want examples of significantly less respect, I'd cite the Mary Rose sailors. I was genuinely taken aback by that. Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:49
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry? Eileen --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote: > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. > > A J > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where > > they envisaged being buried. > > > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H. > > > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> > > *To:* > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38 > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > ** > > > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. > > > > Sandra > > =^..^= > > > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM > > *To:* > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen > > --- In , "SandraMachin" > > <sandramachin@> wrote: > > > > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > > > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > > > > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more > > disgusted I get. > > > > > > Sandra > > > =^..^= > > > From: christineholmes651@ > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it > > on please. > > > best Wishes > > > Christine > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" > > <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf > > in a cardboard box. > > > > > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it > > up. Eileen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns > > the tide! > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto: > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. > > God Bless David and Wendy > > > > > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > >

Come to think if it, Cecily, as far as I know, did not seem to have requested Richard's remains for burial in the family mausoleum or anywhere else. Was she therefore happy that he remained in Leicester? Eileen
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Ironically, the delay and surrounding circus is probably only *because* he was an anointed king...
>
> There's a Towton skeleton on display at Bosworth.  I'd assumed it was a vac-formed replica (probably is), but after seeing the Mary Rose exhibition I had a moment of doubt.  The Chief Exec there is a Rear Admiral, but nevertheless happy with the display of human remains belonging to his predecessors in service 500 years ago.  It suggests that there's been a shift in attitudes to such things that I found entirely unexpected (and maybe it's cyclical - one thinks of medieval death rituals or someone nicking one of Charles I's neck vertebrae - and our relative squeamishness comes on the back of two world wars).  So, if there ever was any tentative thought of displaying Richard's remains, I can sort of see where it came from.
>
> He's lucky that that's not happening - and it's only not happening because of his royal status.  Right outcome, but for the wrong reasons.  If we can identify with Richard as a real person, we can identify just as much with the Master Carpenter of the Mary Rose.  We might not know *his* name, but we can see his reconstructed face, know exactly how he died and see his belongings scattered around.  All this gives as rich a sense of a life as a chronicle source, if not more so.
>
> The ethical waters are getting muddier and, suddenly, I  can see why the Queen is so resistant to any further examination of bones at Westminster Abbey - something that, ironically (hypocritically?), most of us would welcome.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 12:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>  
> Yes I know someone who knows Richard Buckley and says he's a good chap. I agree with most of what you say but perhaps its the delay and the fact that he was an annointed King which makes it all rather obscene. I couldn't imagine them doing the same with say, Queen Anne. Didn't Cambridge students also steal Cromwell's skull?
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 11:53
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>  
> Well, the University Chapel wouldn't be a secure location and, as you said, we really wouldn't want any Jeremy Bentham style pranks. But we genuinely don't know where he is, nor under what conditions.  UoL hasn't done itself any favours with as a corporate entity, but I think it would be a shame to get into the binary opposites position of everything UoL bad / everything else good.  Not least because individual members of staff are *not* the university.  For instance, I've come face-to-face with Turi King and found her immensely likeable.  A relative of mine has said the same about Richard Buckley. I'm not certain that the Towton soldiers were treated with any greater respect and I'd argue that all should be treated equally.  Actually, if you want examples of significantly less respect, I'd cite the Mary Rose sailors.  I was genuinely taken aback by that. Jonathan
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:49
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>  
> In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>  
> Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry? Eileen
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > > they envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > *To:*
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > **
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > > *To:*
> > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > > >
> > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > > disgusted I get.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > > =^..^=
> > > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > > on please.
> > > > best Wishes
> > > > Christine
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > > in a cardboard box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > > up. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > > the tide!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > > >
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Christine
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I completely agree, Eileen.


------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 1:03 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote. As for the diabolical intention of the Uni that they should be allowed access to his remains in the future...this is beyond belief and I hope if and when it rears it's ugly head the Alliance, Ricardians and the general public will make their outrage known loud and clear. The Uni must not be allowed to to do...it's absolutely shocking. I feel absolutely sick every time I think about it. Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>>  You know all these people have been cashing in on Richard by writing articles; even Hicks has come out of the woodwork and written something fairly reasonable (for him) but not one person has picked up a pen to point out the shameful treatment of human remains. I would have thought his relations in the Alliance should have been the first to shout about this? H.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
>> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?
>>
>> Eileen
>> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
>> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>> > > **
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
>> > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
>> > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
>> > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
>> > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
>> > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
>> > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
>> > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
>> > > they envisaged being buried.
>> > >
>> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
>> > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> > >
>> > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > > *To:*
>> > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> > > **
>> > >
>> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
>> > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
>> > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
>> > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
>> > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
>> > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
>> > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
>> > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
>> > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
>> > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
>> > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
>> > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
>> > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
>> > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
>> > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
>> > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
>> > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
>> > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
>> > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
>> > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
>> > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
>> > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> > >
>> > > Sandra
>> > > =^..^=
>> > >
>> > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
>> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>> > > *To:*
>> > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
>> > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
>> > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
>> > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
>> > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
>> > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
>> > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
>> > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
>> > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
>> > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
>> > > >
>> > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
>> > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
>> > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
>> > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
>> > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
>> > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
>> > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
>> > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
>> > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
>> > > disgusted I get.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sandra
>> > > > =^..^=
>> > > > From: christineholmes651@
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
>> > > on please.
>> > > > best Wishes
>> > > > Christine
>> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
>> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
>> > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
>> > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
>> > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
>> > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
>> > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
>> > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
>> > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
>> > > in a cardboard box.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
>> > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
>> > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
>> > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
>> > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
>> > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
>> > > up. Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
>> > > the tide!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
>> > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
>> > > God Bless David and Wendy
>> > > > > >
>> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
>> > > > > > Christine
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ****
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

EILEEN BATES wrote:

"Come to think if it, Cecily, as far as I know, did not seem to have
requested Richard's remains for burial in the family mausoleum or anywhere
else. Was she therefore happy that he remained in Leicester?"

Doug here:
Actually Eileen, that's an excellent question. I don't suppose we could
really compare Richard's case with, say, Henry VI, but how about comparing
the action's of Richard's family with the actions of families who had lost
loved ones who were in rebellion against the the reigning king? I use the
word "rebellion" because that's the closest approximation to how Richard's
actions were considered by his supplanter.
Of course, we're still left with the problem that Richard, and his family,
represented a threat, or could easily appear to do so, to Tudor and that
might have influenced any decisions made or, more importantly, *not* made by
Cecily.
Doug

You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.

But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.


> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jonathan



From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article


I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.

Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

You certainly do!I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
I don't know, and they don't know.
Why do they think they do?

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.

But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.


> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jonathan



From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article


I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.

Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

Well said Colyngbourne. I second, third, and fourth all your comments. RegardsAlison
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use. Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable). And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace. --- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

Jonathan, from all I've read of the Queen, she appears a deeply religious Anglican. (I'm a non-practicing Anglican, but I understand, as she is the head of the Church, HM is. So are many other Anglicans.) I've done a bit of on-line searching of the Church of England on the treatment of discovered remains, and their re-interment. It is very much, as far as I can see, case-by-case. I personally, the least aptitude in practice sciencence oriented person, nevertheless, appreciate scientific research. I do have great doubts about the ULO possession and conservation and possession of the re-interment rights. But. Neither do I support the efforts of those who assume the King's intention of re-burial of York. I do not know the answer to this new WofR breakout (media!) As for future examination. Let us await peer reviews, which might not help. But have what appears to be the body/bones of a King decently re-buried - if the more dedicated Ricardians (I'm not that far!) protest, ok. If the other sides protest, ok. Judith
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Ironically, the delay and surrounding circus is probably only *because* he was an anointed king... There's a Towton skeleton on display at Bosworth. I'd assumed it was a vac-formed replica (probably is), but after seeing the Mary Rose exhibition I had a moment of doubt. The Chief Exec there is a Rear Admiral, but nevertheless happy with the display of human remains belonging to his predecessors in service 500 years ago. It suggests that there's been a shift in attitudes to such things that I found entirely unexpected (and maybe it's cyclical - one thinks of medieval death rituals or someone nicking one of Charles I's neck vertebrae - and our relative squeamishness comes on the back of two world wars). So, if there ever was any tentative thought of displaying Richard's remains, I can sort of see where it came from. He's lucky that that's not happening - and it's only not happening because of his royal status. Right outcome, but for the wrong reasons. If we can identify with Richard as a real person, we can identify just as much with the Master Carpenter of the Mary Rose. We might not know *his* name, but we can see his reconstructed face, know exactly how he died and see his belongings scattered around. All this gives as rich a sense of a life as a chronicle source, if not more so. The ethical waters are getting muddier and, suddenly, I can see why the Queen is so resistant to any further examination of bones at Westminster Abbey - something that, ironically (hypocritically?), most of us would welcome. Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 12:30
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Yes I know someone who knows Richard Buckley and says he's a good chap. I agree with most of what you say but perhaps its the delay and the fact that he was an annointed King which makes it all rather obscene. I couldn't imagine them doing the same with say, Queen Anne. Didn't Cambridge students also steal Cromwell's skull?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 11:53
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Well, the University Chapel wouldn't be a secure location and, as you said, we really wouldn't want any Jeremy Bentham style pranks. But we genuinely don't know where he is, nor under what conditions. UoL hasn't done itself any favours with as a corporate entity, but I think it would be a shame to get into the binary opposites position of everything UoL bad / everything else good. Not least because individual members of staff are *not* the university. For instance, I've come face-to-face with Turi King and found her immensely likeable. A relative of mine has said the same about Richard Buckley. I'm not certain that the Towton soldiers were treated with any greater respect and I'd argue that all should be treated equally. Actually, if you want examples of significantly less respect, I'd cite the Mary Rose sailors. I was genuinely taken aback by that. Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 10:49
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
In that box in a safe with bits missing for testing no doubt? One thing you can be certain of is that he's not in the University chapel. H. It is really horrible, isn't it? Even the Towton soldiers were treated with more respect.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry? Eileen --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote: > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. > > A J > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where > > they envisaged being buried. > > > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H. > > > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> > > *To:* > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38 > > *Subject:* Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > ** > > > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. > > > > Sandra > > =^..^= > > > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM > > *To:* > > *Subject:* Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen > > --- In , "SandraMachin" > > <sandramachin@> wrote: > > > > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > > > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > > > > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more > > disgusted I get. > > > > > > Sandra > > > =^..^= > > > From: christineholmes651@ > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it > > on please. > > > best Wishes > > > Christine > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" > > <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf > > in a cardboard box. > > > > > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it > > up. Eileen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns > > the tide! > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto: > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. > > God Bless David and Wendy > > > > > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > >

I have a question that is perhaps a little at a tangent from this thread, but not quite. It concerns, I think, the first tomb design announced by Leicester Cathedral. Has anyone ever heard that the difference, apart from colour, between the roses of Lancaster and York is that the Lancaster rose petals turn down, while those of the York rose turn up? I ask because I spotted a comment to this effect by someone at the UofL archaeological team site. He (in comments, not official) reckons the rose the cathedral intends, although white, is actually the Lancaster rose. Blooper time. First I'd heard of such a thing. I thought the only difference was the red and white bit. Has anyone else heard this? Or is this man pulling legs? Is this akin to hoisting the Union Jack upside down? http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/team.html Peter Gledhill. 4th March 2013:-

I carry an ancient Yorkshire family name. I am a Yorkshireman.

The visuals of a proposed tomb for Richard the Third show a LANCASHIRE rose thereon.

Both Lancashire and Yorkshire Roses are five petal.

The Lancashire rose has the petal DOWN joint to top. The Yorkshire rose has the PETAL UP.

Hence one can identify both by simple visual view.

This is an horrendous mistake if not rectified.

Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:03 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

They are too busy with this incessant wrangling about where he should be buried...fine...but I think it is of great import where he is lying in the meantime. As for the diabolical intention of the Uni that they should be allowed access to his remains in the future...this is beyond belief and I hope if and when it rears it's ugly head the Alliance, Ricardians and the general public will make their outrage known loud and clear. The Uni must not be allowed to to do...it's absolutely shocking. I feel absolutely sick every time I think about it. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Â You know all these people have been cashing in on Richard by writing articles; even Hicks has come out of the woodwork and written something fairly reasonable (for him) but not one person has picked up a pen to point out the shameful treatment of human remains. I would have thought his relations in the Alliance should have been the first to shout about this? H.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:41
> Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Â
>
> Does anyone know where the remains of Richard are at this precise moment...The Priory that Hilary mentioned seems the perfect place...if they, the University had the will to do the right thing, However...where is Richard at this moment. Are they ashamed or too cowardly to let it be known as it would create an outcry?
>
> Eileen
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his
> > > Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road
> > > where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for
> > > over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for
> > > whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those
> > > Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where
> > > they envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the
> > > University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > *From:* SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > *To:*
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > **
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > > That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and
> > > when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place,
> > > will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to
> > > proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be
> > > taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face
> > > it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place,
> > > without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to
> > > embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and
> > > no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without
> > > doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in
> > > York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he
> > > was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also
> > > eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and
> > > the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of
> > > caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest
> > > solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work
> > > it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I
> > > do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It
> > > just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > *From:* EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> > > *To:*
> > > *Subject:* [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen
> > > --- In , "SandraMachin"
> > > <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ.
> > > >
> > > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much
> > > of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more
> > > disgusted I get.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > > =^..^=
> > > > From: christineholmes651@
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it
> > > on please.
> > > > best Wishes
> > > > Christine
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty
> > > unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know
> > > better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put
> > > Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can
> > > scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in
> > > shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people
> > > around who still have morals to put a stop to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this
> > > fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf
> > > in a cardboard box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking
> > > about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way
> > > he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he
> > > had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who
> > > wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they
> > > fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it
> > > up. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > > the tide!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > > christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am.
> > > God Bless David and Wendy
> > > > > >
> > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > > > Christine
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hilary wrote:

"<snip> What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H."

Carol responds:

That's because, to them, he's the architectural discovery of the year, not a person (as he is to us) or even an anointed king. I except Lin Foxhall from this charge--she has attempted to link the skeleton with historical accounts and to distinguish scoliosis from kyphosis. But the wielder of the mattock that did further damage to Richard's skull is the worst of the lot. To him, he's nothing but the Hunchback of Leicester Parking Lot and the maker of her career. If only Richard Buckley had believed that they would actually find Richard and had not relegated the job of excavating him to an inexperienced, unprofessional newbie!

But I agree with whoever said that we should distinguish Leicester Cathedral from Leicester University. Their attitude does seem to have improved since that statement recommending a slab rather than a tomb came out. Sorry I can't recall what it was called.

Carol

Sandra wrote:

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^= Carol responds:

Oh, dear. I agree with Phil Stone that the design is "utterly uninspired." It looks like a giant shoebox. (And the writer of the article clearly doesn't know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.) The original design was much more imaginative and inspiring.

There's a poll beneath the article asking whether we like the design. I voted no and commented that it looked like a shoebox. Don't know whether my laconic little comment will appear or not.

Carol

ÿ Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jessie Skinner To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

You certainly do! I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
I don't know, and they don't know.
Why do they think they do?

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Yorkshire Post article

> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.

But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.


> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jonathan



From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Yorkshire Post article


I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.

Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).

And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them. The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. A J On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: >> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jessie Skinner
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You certainly do!
> I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>
> I don't know, and they don't know.
>
> Why do they think they do?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>
> > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>
>
>
>
> But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>
> > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
>
>
>
> But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>
>
> Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>
>
> I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
> Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>
> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>
> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
> And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
> --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>
>
> I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>
> Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
>
>
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>
> Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it, what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>
> What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>

/cynicism on

Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.

/cynicism off

~Weds




On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
 

To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jessie Skinner
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You certainly do!
> I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>
> I don't know, and they don't know.
>
> Why do they think they do?
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>
> > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>
>
>
>
> But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>
> > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
>
>
>
> But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>
>
> Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>
>
> I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
> Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>
> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>
> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
> And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
> --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>
>
> I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>
> Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
>
>
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>
> Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>
> What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

CarolThat's exactly what it looks like- a shoebox!Vickie

Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^= Carol responds:

Oh, dear. I agree with Phil Stone that the design is "utterly uninspired." It looks like a giant shoebox. (And the writer of the article clearly doesn't know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.) The original design was much more imaginative and inspiring.

There's a poll beneath the article asking whether we like the design. I voted no and commented that it looked like a shoebox. Don't know whether my laconic little comment will appear or not.

Carol

I was naughty. I said it looked like something from Tate Modern or a piece of supermarket cheese, but the stone was lovely and could take a carving of the king's heraldic achievement.i also said the curve of the top petal should be checked.Mind you, I like Tate Modern....Tin hat on,Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 20 Sep 2013, at 20:13, Lolette Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

CarolThat's exactly what it looks like- a shoebox!Vickie

Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^= Carol responds:

Oh, dear. I agree with Phil Stone that the design is "utterly uninspired." It looks like a giant shoebox. (And the writer of the article clearly doesn't know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.) The original design was much more imaginative and inspiring.

There's a poll beneath the article asking whether we like the design. I voted no and commented that it looked like a shoebox. Don't know whether my laconic little comment will appear or not.

Carol

The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same? We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things, see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have. So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do. I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on. Sandra =^..^= From: Wednesday McKenna Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

/cynicism on

Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.

/cynicism off

~Weds




On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jessie Skinner
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You certainly do!
> I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>
> I don't know, and they don't know.
>
> Why do they think they do?
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>
> > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>
>
>
>
> But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>
> > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
>
>
>
> But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>
>
> Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>
>
> I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
> Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>
> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>
> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
> And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
> --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>
>
> I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>
> Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
>
>
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>
> Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>
> What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>




--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Too right…..and I hope this does not offend, but the white rose did not look right to me.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lolette Cook
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:14 PM
To:
Cc: < >
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Carol

That's exactly what it looks like- a shoebox!

Vickie

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

Here it is. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Final-Richard-III-tomb-designs-revealed/story-19819567-detail/story.html#axzz2fGOeXSVl =^..^=

Carol responds:

Oh, dear. I agree with Phil Stone that the design is "utterly uninspired." It looks like a giant shoebox. (And the writer of the article clearly doesn't know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.) The original design was much more imaginative and inspiring.

There's a poll beneath the article asking whether we like the design. I voted no and commented that it looked like a shoebox. Don't know whether my laconic little comment will appear or not.

Carol

An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>
> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things, see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>
> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>
> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
> /cynicism on
>
> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>
>
> /cynicism off
>
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jessie Skinner
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > You certainly do!
> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
> >
> > I don't know, and they don't know.
> >
> > Why do they think they do?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
> >
> >
> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> >
> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> >
>
> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
> >
> >
> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
> >
> >
> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
> >
> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
> >
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
> >
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> >
> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
> >
> >
>
> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
> >
> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
> >
> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
> >
> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it, what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> >
> >
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
> >
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
>
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
>
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
>
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

No, it certainly wasn't Richard I of whom you are thinking. Yes, heart buried in one place. Entrails in another. Standard operating procedure then. To my knowledge (i.e. reading) his bod was not quartered....His body lies in Fontevrault, with those of his parents.
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:25:37 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
/cynicism on Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels. /cynicism off ~Weds
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jessie Skinner > To: > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > You certainly do! > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been. > > I don't know, and they don't know. > > Why do they think they do? > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> > To: "" <> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21 > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote: > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]> > To: > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02 > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article > > > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's > > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. > > > > > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case. > > > > > > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, >
> > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable). > > > > > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North". > > > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself. > > > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing. > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]> > To: > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02 > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me. > > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery. > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use. > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable). > > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them. > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace. > > > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote: > > > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it. > > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me. > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me. > > > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace. > > > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@> > To: > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37 > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > > > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him. > > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit. > > Sandra > =^..^= > > From: Hilary Jones > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H. > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> > To: "" <> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32 > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion. > > A J > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote: > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried. > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H. > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@> > To: > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38 > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved. > > Sandra > =^..^= > > From: EILEEN BATES > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves. > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > > > -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Perhaps. It would make sense. But he hadn't time...
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:29:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Yorkshire Post article

To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jessie Skinner
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You certainly do!
> I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>
> I don't know, and they don't know.
>
> Why do they think they do?
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>
> > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>
>
>
>
> But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>
> > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
>
>
>
> But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>
>
> Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>
>
> I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
> Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>
> You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>
> Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>
> And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
> --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>
>
> I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>
> Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>
> I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>
>
>
> The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>
>
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
>
> But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>
> Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>
> A J
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>
> What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
> Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>

Absolutely first class, Sandra.
I was feeling depressed about the whole thing too.
You have quite cheered me up.

I will be away for a few days visiting relatives in Cumbria, I will keep in touch if I can but the signal up in the mountains can be a bit uncertain.

Look after Richard for me while I am away.
I will be taking some of the reccommeded reading material away with me.


------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 8:49 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote:

>An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>>
>> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things,
see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>>
>> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>>
>> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>>
>> Sandra
>> =^..^=
>> From: Wednesday McKenna
>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>
>> /cynicism on
>>
>> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>>
>>
>> /cynicism off
>>
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jessie Skinner
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > You certainly do!
>> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>> >
>> > I don't know, and they don't know.
>> >
>> > Why do they think they do?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
>> > To: "" <>
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>> >
>> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>> >
>>
>> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>> >
>> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this,
because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>> >
>> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>> >
>> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>> >
>> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: Hilary Jones
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>>
>> > To: "" <>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>> >
>> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> >
>>
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York.
Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
>> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never
becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around
who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
<christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>

Hi all

I'm Alison & i'm from York.

--- In , <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>
> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things, see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>
> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>
> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
>
>
> /cynicism on
>
> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>
>
> /cynicism off
>
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jessie Skinner
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > You certainly do!
> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
> >
> > I don't know, and they don't know.
> >
> > Why do they think they do?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>
> >
> >
> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> >
> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> >
>
> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
> >
> >
> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
> >
> >
> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
> >
> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
> >
> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
> >
> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> >
> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
> >
> >
>
> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
> >
> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
> >
> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
> >
> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it, what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> >
> >
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>
> >
> >
> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> >
> > A J
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
>
> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
> >
> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> >
>
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> >
>
> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

So how, how, how do we do this???? Mass mailing letters to the Times....... Appeals to the Queen, she does even Twitter....... Adverts Road signs What????? Not being a British subject, I am clueless.

On Sep 20, 2013, at 4:45 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:

Absolutely first class, Sandra.
I was feeling depressed about the whole thing too.
You have quite cheered me up.

I will be away for a few days visiting relatives in Cumbria, I will keep in touch if I can but the signal up in the mountains can be a bit uncertain.

Look after Richard for me while I am away.
I will be taking some of the reccommeded reading material away with me.

------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 8:49 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote:

>An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>>
>> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things,
see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>>
>> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>>
>> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>>
>> Sandra
>> =^..^=
>> From: Wednesday McKenna
>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>
>> /cynicism on
>>
>> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>>
>>
>> /cynicism off
>>
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jessie Skinner
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > You certainly do!
>> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>> >
>> > I don't know, and they don't know.
>> >
>> > Why do they think they do?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
>> > To: "" <>
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>> >
>> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>> >
>>
>> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>> >
>> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this,
because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>> >
>> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>> >
>> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>> >
>> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: Hilary Jones
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>>
>> > To: "" <>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>> >
>> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> >
>>
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York.
Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
>> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never
becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around
who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
<christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Window+edward+IV+canterbury+cathedral&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C8%3Bd%7ChW4edsqOH29P-M%3A

I was in Canterbury this afternoon visiting the library & archives & had 20 minutes to spare so went to the Martyrdom chapel where Thomas a Becket was murdered. This enormous window showing the family of E4 is part of it. There used to be many more images but the religious ones, showing the Virgin etc were destroyed in the C17, I think.
I hope the link works.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:05, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

Absolutely first class, Sandra.
I was feeling depressed about the whole thing too.
You have quite cheered me up.

I will be away for a few days visiting relatives in Cumbria, I will keep in touch if I can but the signal up in the mountains can be a bit uncertain.

Look after Richard for me while I am away.
I will be taking some of the reccommeded reading material away with me.

------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 8:49 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote:

>An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>>
>> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things,
see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>>
>> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>>
>> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>>
>> Sandra
>> =^..^=
>> From: Wednesday McKenna
>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>
>> /cynicism on
>>
>> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>>
>>
>> /cynicism off
>>
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jessie Skinner
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > You certainly do!
>> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>> >
>> > I don't know, and they don't know.
>> >
>> > Why do they think they do?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
>> > To: "" <>
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>> >
>> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>> >
>>
>> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>> >
>> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this,
because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>> >
>> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>> >
>> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>> >
>> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: Hilary Jones
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>>
>> > To: "" <>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>> >
>> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> >
>>
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York.
Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
>> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never
becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around
who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
<christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>

Poor Richard. Thank God he is beyond caring now...

Eileen
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> /cynicism on
>
> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart?
> Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off
> an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the
> portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than
> tombs or chapels.
>
> /cynicism off
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as
> > well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried
> > alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he
> > could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new
> > chapel. Eileen
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a
> > laptop or a will has been found.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jessie Skinner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You certainly do!
> > > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given
> > understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
> > >
> > > I don't know, and they don't know.
> > >
> > > Why do they think they do?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of
> > whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> > >
> > > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a
> > monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral
> > descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The
> > Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth,
> > they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated
> > evidence in support of their case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> > >
> > > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a
> > Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but
> > set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're
> > going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the
> > likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of
> > those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the
> > Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of
> > "The Lord of the North".
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be
> > over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a
> > worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither
> > Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all
> > discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will
> > affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone
> > here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign
> > for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might
> > achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and
> > fury signifying nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't
> > exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he
> > needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the
> > artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of
> > these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the
> > context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him.
> > His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they
> > do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his
> > discovery.
> > >
> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom
> > lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which,
> > imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city
> > council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the
> > appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest
> > for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and
> > expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to
> > decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open
> > (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one
> > voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be
> > another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that
> > their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that
> > archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were
> > seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone
> > had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors
> > between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially
> > privatised the king's remains for their own use.
> > >
> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York
> > Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been
> > uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he
> > did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not
> > re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no
> > meaning to them.
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying
> > perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he
> > hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was
> > unhappy about it.
> > >
> > > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where
> > the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the
> > interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a
> > few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but
> > unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the
> > opinion of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance
> > don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen
> > to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion
> > is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on
> > this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to
> > honour him.
> > >
> > > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about
> > this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that
> > I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral
> > planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with
> > a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it,
> > what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping
> > bit.
> >
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the
> > judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could
> > be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> > >
> > > A J
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic
> > 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where
> > the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over
> > 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever
> > reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth
> > soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they
> > envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which
> > the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this,
> > and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting
> > place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed
> > to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to
> > be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us
> > face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable
> > place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it
> > wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot
> > tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say
> > without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be
> > buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and
> > where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites.
> > He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that
> > time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled
> > him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for
> > the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a
> > conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I
> > hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke
> > York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be
> > resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> >
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen ---
> > In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote: >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > >
> > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of
> > modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the
> > more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ >
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To:
> > > Subject: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people
> > to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine >
> > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In ,
> > "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting
> > Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday
> > of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read
> > that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my
> > stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this
> > idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really
> > and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop
> > to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable
> > while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere
> > on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be
> > subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find
> > out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently
> > the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the
> > Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his
> > remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short
> > pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In
> > , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@
> > <mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone
> > has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy >
> > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

Basically it's all turned into a nightmare hasn't it....? The joy of Richard being found...all evaporated.....Eileen

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> /cynicism on
>
> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart?
> Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off
> an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the
> portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than
> tombs or chapels.
>
> /cynicism off
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as
> > well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried
> > alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he
> > could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new
> > chapel. Eileen
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a
> > laptop or a will has been found.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jessie Skinner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You certainly do!
> > > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given
> > understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
> > >
> > > I don't know, and they don't know.
> > >
> > > Why do they think they do?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of
> > whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> > >
> > > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a
> > monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral
> > descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The
> > Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth,
> > they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated
> > evidence in support of their case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> > >
> > > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a
> > Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but
> > set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're
> > going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the
> > likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of
> > those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the
> > Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of
> > "The Lord of the North".
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be
> > over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a
> > worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither
> > Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all
> > discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will
> > affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone
> > here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign
> > for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might
> > achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and
> > fury signifying nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't
> > exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he
> > needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the
> > artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of
> > these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the
> > context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him.
> > His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they
> > do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his
> > discovery.
> > >
> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom
> > lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which,
> > imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city
> > council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the
> > appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest
> > for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and
> > expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to
> > decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open
> > (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one
> > voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be
> > another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that
> > their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that
> > archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were
> > seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone
> > had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors
> > between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially
> > privatised the king's remains for their own use.
> > >
> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York
> > Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been
> > uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he
> > did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not
> > re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no
> > meaning to them.
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying
> > perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he
> > hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was
> > unhappy about it.
> > >
> > > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where
> > the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the
> > interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a
> > few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard’s possible but
> > unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the
> > opinion of ‘descendants’ over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance
> > don’t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen
> > to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion
> > is NOT being taken into account. I’m sorry, but I’m with Hilary on
> > this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to
> > honour him.
> > >
> > > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about
> > this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that
> > I didn’t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral
> > planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with
> > a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That’s it,
> > what else was said I haven’t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping
> > bit.
> >
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the
> > judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could
> > be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> > >
> > > A J
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic
> > 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where
> > the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over
> > 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever
> > reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth
> > soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they
> > envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which
> > the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > That’s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this,
> > and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting
> > place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed
> > to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to
> > be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us
> > face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable
> > place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it
> > wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot
> > tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say
> > without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be
> > buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and
> > where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites.
> > He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that
> > time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled
> > him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for
> > the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a
> > conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I
> > hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke
> > York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be
> > resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> >
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen ---
> > In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote: >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > >
> > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of
> > modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the
> > more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ >
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To:
> > > Subject: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people
> > to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine >
> > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In ,
> > "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting
> > Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday
> > of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read
> > that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my
> > stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this
> > idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really
> > and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop
> > to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable
> > while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere
> > on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be
> > subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find
> > out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently
> > the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the
> > Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his
> > remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short
> > pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In
> > , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@
> > <mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone
> > has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy >
> > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

Not a complete nightmare, at least not to me. Richard is still Richard. What it has reinforced for me is that men's greed hasn't changed a bit in 500+ years. Some still want to profit from his death, giving no thought to the man behind the bones they're set on destroying.

I know that scientists are not attached to what or who they study. That somehow makes it all the sadder. The man has been eclipsed; what's left of him is to be used. Again.

~Weds


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
 

Basically it's all turned into a nightmare hasn't it....? The joy of Richard being found...all evaporated.....Eileen

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> /cynicism on
>
> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart?
> Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off
> an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the
> portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than
> tombs or chapels.
>
> /cynicism off
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as
> > well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried
> > alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he
> > could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new
> > chapel. Eileen
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a
> > laptop or a will has been found.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jessie Skinner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You certainly do!
> > > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given
> > understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
> > >
> > > I don't know, and they don't know.
> > >
> > > Why do they think they do?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of
> > whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
> > >
> > > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a
> > monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral
> > descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The
> > Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth,
> > they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated
> > evidence in support of their case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
> > >
> > > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a
> > Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but
> > set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're
> > going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the
> > likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of
> > those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the
> > Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of
> > "The Lord of the North".
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be
> > over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a
> > worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither
> > Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all
> > discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will
> > affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone
> > here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign
> > for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might
> > achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and
> > fury signifying nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
> > > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't
> > exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he
> > needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the
> > artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of
> > these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the
> > context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him.
> > His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they
> > do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his
> > discovery.
> > >
> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom
> > lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which,
> > imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city
> > council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the
> > appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest
> > for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and
> > expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to
> > decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open
> > (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one
> > voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be
> > another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that
> > their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that
> > archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were
> > seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone
> > had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors
> > between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially
> > privatised the king's remains for their own use.
> > >
> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's
> > not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York
> > Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
> > >
> > > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been
> > uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he
> > did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not
> > re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no
> > meaning to them.
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying
> > perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he
> > hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was
> > unhappy about it.
> > >
> > > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where
> > the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the
> > interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
> > >
> > > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just
> > seems more suitable to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful.
> > however, once the university have finished their researches, access for
> > further interference should be severely limited, if not completely
> > curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of
> > England and left to rest in peace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a
> > few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but
> > unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the
> > opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance
> > donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen
> > to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion
> > is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on
> > this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to
> > honour him.
> > >
> > > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about
> > this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that
> > I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral
> > planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with
> > a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it,
> > what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping
> > bit.
> >
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the
> > judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could
> > be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented
> > situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
> > >
> > > A J
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd
> > say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with
> > what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic
> > 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where
> > the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over
> > 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever
> > reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth
> > soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they
> > envisaged being buried.
> > >
> > > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which
> > the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly,
> > when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in
> > Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts.
> > Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this,
> > and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting
> > place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed
> > to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to
> > be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us
> > face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable
> > place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it
> > wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot
> > tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say
> > without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be
> > buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and
> > where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites.
> > He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that
> > time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled
> > him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for
> > the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a
> > conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I
> > hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke
> > York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be
> > resolved.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
> >
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is
> > not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay
> > looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen ---
> > In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote: >
> > > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the
> > disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no
> > House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains,
> > least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give
> > Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say
> > that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > >
> > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of
> > modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was
> > found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university
> > archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his
> > discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought
> > highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering
> > when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking
> > is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon
> > it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
> > > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the
> > more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ >
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To:
> > > Subject: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people
> > to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine >
> > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In ,
> > "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting
> > Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday
> > of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read
> > that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my
> > stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this
> > idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really
> > and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop
> > to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable
> > while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere
> > on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be
> > subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find
> > out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently
> > the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the
> > Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his
> > remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short
> > pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In
> > , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > >
> > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns
> > the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@
> > <mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:
> > christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone
> > has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy >
> > > >
> > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349> > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Link worked, Jan. It is a beautiful window. Very happy you saw it in actuality.from Judith
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 6:02:09 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Window+edward+IV+canterbury+cathedral&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C8%3Bd%7ChW4edsqOH29P-M%3A I was in Canterbury this afternoon visiting the library & archives & had 20 minutes to spare so went to the Martyrdom chapel where Thomas a Becket was murdered. This enormous window showing the family of E4 is part of it. There used to be many more images but the religious ones, showing the Virgin etc were destroyed in the C17, I think.
I hope the link works.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:05, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

Absolutely first class, Sandra.
I was feeling depressed about the whole thing too.
You have quite cheered me up.

I will be away for a few days visiting relatives in Cumbria, I will keep in touch if I can but the signal up in the mountains can be a bit uncertain.

Look after Richard for me while I am away.
I will be taking some of the reccommeded reading material away with me.

------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 8:49 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote:

>An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>>
>> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things,
see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>>
>> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>>
>> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>>
>> Sandra
>> =^..^=
>> From: Wednesday McKenna
>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>
>> /cynicism on
>>
>> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>>
>>
>> /cynicism off
>>
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jessie Skinner
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > You certainly do!
>> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>> >
>> > I don't know, and they don't know.
>> >
>> > Why do they think they do?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
>> > To: "" <>
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>> >
>> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>> >
>>
>> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>> >
>> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this,
because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>> >
>> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>> >
>> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>> >
>> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: Hilary Jones
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>>
>> > To: "" <>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>> >
>> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> >
>>
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York.
Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
>> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never
becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around
who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
<christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>

Dare I suggest that this whole burial furore, much as we may not like it, is actually keeping Richard in the forefront of the news? If Leicester (say) was proceeding unchallenged with preparations for the reburial and so on, how much would Richard be in the public eye right now? It would have gone very quiet, I think, with the next excitement expected in late spring 2014. Oh, there would be a few flurries (I won't mention infestations) but generally he would have faded a little. Instead he is still on the national TV news and still in all the newspapers. There can't be many people now who have never heard of him, or who haven't seen his face. At the beginning, when the remains were proved to be his, I don't recall there being much racket about him having a lavish burial and tomb, certainly not that there was very likely going to be a round-the-world TV broadcast of it all as well. The excitement went in a different direction. Now look where we are. Whether Leicester, York or anywhere else, he's going to be laid to rest with all the grandeur and reverence his rank can command, given it is not to be a state occasion. Which it should be!!! But, boy, is he being talked about! So, modern noise, furore, media, bells and whistles are keeping him where he should be  at the top. Even TWQ did its bit. The fact that there are a LOT of people who want to clear his name is now much more widespread than before, and the argument about him goes on, with, I am sure, the traditionalists having to give ground. There is a surge in his favour, with new converts all the time. I haven't heard about new traditionalists popping up all over the place. Maybe they're there, but their voices are a little lost. They're reduced to sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Experts' who want to denigrate him are being loudly challenged too. Good. They had it their own way for far too long. So the modern scene, whether or not it is a million miles away from the scene Richard would have known, is working in his favour. It may not sit well with a lot of folk, and I can understand and respect why, but we had not progressed a great deal before Richard was discovered. Great efforts were being made, and certainly he had support, but now everyone knows him and he has a lot, lot more adherents. And we all know that once a Richard supporter, always a Richard supporter! We have the opportunity to actually restore him and I, for one, do not think the modern way is entirely to be deplored. It's our way, we can no longer do things his way, but we can still try to do him proud. Whichever way. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Bain Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:48 PM To: mailto: Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

So how, how, how do we do this???? Mass mailing letters to the Times....... Appeals to the Queen, she does even Twitter....... Adverts Road signs What????? Not being a British subject, I am clueless.
On Sep 20, 2013, at 4:45 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:

Absolutely first class, Sandra.
I was feeling depressed about the whole thing too.
You have quite cheered me up.

I will be away for a few days visiting relatives in Cumbria, I will keep in touch if I can but the signal up in the mountains can be a bit uncertain.

Look after Richard for me while I am away.
I will be taking some of the reccommeded reading material away with me.

------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 8:49 PM BST EILEEN BATES wrote:

>An excellent post Sandra...I was beginning to feel quite down by it all. Actually a couple of messages I have posted have not shown up...perhaps a good thing. Thank you for raising my spirits...yes we must count our blessings..Eileen
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, do we want to spread the truth about Richard to as many people as we can? To do that we need to have as much publicity as possible. I'm not advocating Weds' tongue-in-cheek suggestions, but I do not see how we can appeal to the widest spectrum of society by disapproving of all the very things that are likely to attract attention. Why is it so bad to have a museum or visitors' centre? Do we know that York and all other possible contenders would/will not do the same?
>>
>> We can't be a closed shop. After 528 years, we have him again. Him. The king we have come together to support and place where he should be, not where cruel history has relegated him. Did we ever imagine that would one day be so? We thought he had been lost forever. Well, no, he's here after all, to the extent that he is not just hidden away in a tomb, like all the other monarchs, but we have had the chance to actual SEE him again. We know so much more about him now, and that reconstruction of his head must surely have done more good than anything to put him in the right light. He's not like Olivier after all, he's the young monarch who was Richard III. What other early king do we now know so well? None of them. We no longer see Olivier's caricature, we see Richard, and wherever he is laid to rest, I will go to pay my respects. And if I have even more to look at than his actual tomb, I will want to see it all. I will want to buy things, read things,
see things. The whole enchilada. Will that lower him in my regard? Will it heck. Will it lower him in the eyes of others, who haven't known him until then? No. Why should it? When I look at his tomb, I will not see bones, I will see Richard as we now know his face was, he will be whole again and seem to be resting, dressed in rich clothes and looking as I am sure he would have wished. Then I will go to see everything else there is to see. It will be an experience I can still hardly believe I will have.
>>
>> So I want him to be publicised, trumpeted, blared, shouted and generally lauded, because placing him behind a veil or even a curtain simply will not do.
>>
>> I am NOT supporting the UofL's purported intentions, because if the stories are true about their wishes regarding future access to him, I think it is profane and utterly abhorrent. They have had their chance to find out all sorts of things about him. Enough already. No more. Nor will any church allow it. I trust that when he is placed in the coffin, the correct number of bones will be checked by someone other than a UofL representative. Now I'm the one with the cynical hat on.
>>
>> Sandra
>> =^..^=
>> From: Wednesday McKenna
>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>>
>>
>> /cynicism on
>>
>> Why don't they just do what was done with...was it Richard the Lionheart? Send a portion of him to every corner of England that wants him. Shave off an extra portion for the University for future study. Televise the portioning and sell DVDs. Reliquaries are, after all, much cheaper than tombs or chapels.
>>
>>
>> /cynicism off
>>
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> To hazard a guess...well it's all guesswork really isn't it so I might as well...I would have thought he would have wanted to have been buried alongside Anne in Westminster Abbey. Of course it was rather crowded but he could have gone along the same route as HT took and built a fabulous new chapel. Eileen
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard must have been to a lot of seances, unless he was buried with a laptop or a will has been found.
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Jessie Skinner
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > You certainly do!
>> > I am always very suspicious of people who feel that they have God given understanding of what someone else's wishes would have been.
>> >
>> > I don't know, and they don't know.
>> >
>> > Why do they think they do?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@>
>> > To: "" <>
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 16:21
>> > Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > You write a good deal of sense, Jonathan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's
>> >
>> > > interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But, contrary to how they present themselves, the Alliance do not have a monopoly on Richard's interests. Nor are they the only collateral descendants, some of whom have stated a preference for Leicester. The Alliance are claiming to speak with a special privilege that, in truth, they don't possess. And they have consistently twisted and over-stated evidence in support of their case.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church,
>> >
>>
>> > > Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But other options *are* available. The legal opinion I've read is that a Judicial Review will not simply adjudicate between Leicester and York, but set the clock back to zero. So why not Westminster or Windsor? If you're going down the route of what would Richard's wishes have been, the likelihood is that, after becoming King, he would have chosen either of those locations above York. But neither Westminster nor Windsor fit the Alliance's narrative, which seems to be based around some romantic idea of "The Lord of the North".
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyway, Chris Grayling seems adamant that his decision should not be over-turned and, with the Ministry of Justice intransigent, we're facing a worst case scenario of months of legal wrangling, which is good for neither Leicester, York, nor - especially - Richard himself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I really think it would be sensible to have a moratorium on all discussion about where Richard should be buried. Whatever we say will affect nothing and only serve to inflame opinion as, I suspect, everyone here has already formed their own opinion. By all means go out and campaign for any of the half-dozen places that can lay a claim to him - that might achieve something - but using this group is very much a case of sound and fury signifying nothing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
>> > Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> > Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.
>> >
>> > You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this,
because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.
>> >
>> > Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).
>> >
>> > And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > --- In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.
>> >
>> > Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.
>> >
>> > I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richardâ¬"s possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of â¬Üdescendantsâ¬" over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance donâ¬"t know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. Iâ¬"m sorry, but Iâ¬"m with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.
>> >
>> > Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didnâ¬"t see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. Thatâ¬"s it, what else was said I havenâ¬"t a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: Hilary Jones
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
>>
>> > To: "" <>
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.
>> >
>> > A J
>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.
>> >
>> > What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.
>> >
>>
>> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>> > Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. Thatâ¬"s just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York.
Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> > =^..^=
>> >
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM
>>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote: >
>> > > I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never
becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.
>> > > > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@ > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around
who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>"
<christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> a.. Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> b.. Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>

Me too&..

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Alison Shiels
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

Well said Colyngbourne. I second, third, and fourth all your comments.

Regards

Alison

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.

You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.

Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.

Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.

From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.

A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.

What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: EILEEN BATES

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: >

> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.

> > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

I agree, Weds. I'm still overjoyed and deeply moved that Richard has been found in our time.

Of course it's a shame there is wrangling but really - what is now being revealed seems to be that PL was mis-led by the university from the beginning, if they were telling her that archaeological practice meant that Richard would have to be re-buried in Leicester - which is a fallacy. Then the City Council appear to have given their ultimatum that if there was a dig for Richard, then the City Council insisted that the remains stayed in the city if found.

Does any of that sound right? Honourable to King Richard?

But the thrill of knowing he is found does not go away.

--- In , <pbain@...> wrote:

Me too&..

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Alison Shiels
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Yorkshire Post article

Well said Colyngbourne. I second, third, and fourth all your comments.

Regards

Alison

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.

You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.

Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.

Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.

From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.

A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.

What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: EILEEN BATES

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: >

> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.

> > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2424382/PHILIPPA-LANGLEY-author-located-remains-Richard-III-wants-restore-reputation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml She tells of the Bone Basher mentioning the word hunchback, but leaves it hanging. Subtle stuff. Sandra =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 10:28 PM To: Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

I agree, Weds. I'm still overjoyed and deeply moved that Richard has been found in our time.

Of course it's a shame there is wrangling but really - what is now being revealed seems to be that PL was mis-led by the university from the beginning, if they were telling her that archaeological practice meant that Richard would have to be re-buried in Leicester - which is a fallacy. Then the City Council appear to have given their ultimatum that if there was a dig for Richard, then the City Council insisted that the remains stayed in the city if found.

Does any of that sound right? Honourable to King Richard?

But the thrill of knowing he is found does not go away.

--- In , <pbain@...> wrote:

Me too&..

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Alison Shiels
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Yorkshire Post article

Well said Colyngbourne. I second, third, and fourth all your comments.

Regards

Alison

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2013, 8:02
Subject: RE: Yorkshire Post article

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

Hi Jessie, Richard has been lying "peacefully" because ghosts don't exist - he had no choice in the matter. Your last sentence indicates he needs respect as a king of England - but re-interring him close to the artefacts of his original appalling burial and the "interpretation" of these (a touristic Visitors Centre") sets no store by his kingship and the context of his life, which is surely the most important thing about him. His life, not his death. Leicester should create their RIII Centre but they do not need his remains in the cathedral in order to profit from his discovery.

You have no axe to grind, but neither do the Alliance, only one of whom lives in York. They are trying to represent Richard's interests - which, imo, is the only thing that matters in this affair. The interests of a city council, a university, a cathedral - these are nothing to do with the appropriate re-interment of a king: they are loaded with vested interest for reasons that are other than Richard's own likely wishes and expectations. When Judge Haddon-Cave suggested an independent panel to decide the location, that was a sensible move, and one which was not open (hopefully) to vested interest. The opinions of the Alliance would be one voice at this panel, the voice of experts in Richard's life would be another. At least two of the original project-founders are stating that their original idea was York, but that they were led to believe that archaeological practice would mean it had to be Leicester. IMO, they were seriously misled on this, because this is not the case, and this fact alone had implications for the various agreements that were made behind doors between the council and uni etc. These latter two have essentially privatised the king's remains for their own use.Two easy questions - what would Richard have wished for himself? It's not presumptuous to try this one out: St Martin's Church, Leicester or York Minster. (Other options are unavailable).And, if a discovery of a King of England killed in battle had been uncovered in Richard's time, what would Richard do? Well, we know what he did for his brother and father. We can reasonably infer that he would not re-inter nobility, and a king at that, in a local church that had no meaning to them.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

--- In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am in support of you on this one, Sandra. Richard has been lying perfectly peacefully in Leicester for 500 years, ans as far as we know, he hasn't been rising from the grave and frightening old ladies because he was unhappy about it.

Leicester, near to the battle site where he met his end, near to where the body was found, near to the artifacts connected to that find, and the interpretation of the dig seems eminently sensible to me.

I have no axe to grind, I don't live near Leicester or York ,it just seems more suitable to me.

The cathedral there, and their plans for the tomb sound respectful. however, once the university have finished their researches, access for further interference should be severely limited, if not completely curtailed. The poor man should be treated with respect as a former king of England and left to rest in peace.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

But what one criterion do you mean, AJ? It seems to me there are quite a few, and they all point (IMHO) to Leicester. Richard's possible but unproven desire to be laid to rest in York is not enough, nor is the opinion of descendants' over 500 years later. The Plantagenet Alliance don't know any more about his wishes than anyone else, they just happen to share some DNA connection, along with millions of others, whose opinion is NOT being taken into account. I'm sorry, but I'm with Hilary on this. Leicester wants to keep him, needs him and are doing all they can to honour him.

Dang, there has just been a news item from Leicester on Sky News about this very thing, and I am so busy listening to music and writing this that I didn't see it until the end! Something about Leicester Cathedral planning his actual raised tomb to be slightly sloping, deeply incised with a cross and the white rose emblem, and marked with his motto. That's it, what else was said I haven't a clue. And I may be wrong about the sloping bit.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:58 PM

To:

Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

I'm saying we must be pragmatic with the final decision. Unless the judiciary are totally incorruptible (and to be fair they should and could be) then we are in the realms of 'Yes Minster'. H.

From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 15:32
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

Nope, I'm not prepared to be pragmatic. This is an unprecedented situation, & should not be decided on only one criterion.

A J

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

That's what I've thought for a long time too. If I were a politician I'd say that Leicester's need is far greater than York's (nothing to do with what he or I believe he may have wanted). And he can have his Catholic 'lying in state' at the Priory of the Holy Cross, just up the road where the good friars will give him more love and care than he has had for over 500 years. We must be pragmatic. And to be fair, Leicester, for whatever reason, is doing good by him so far. It's a bit like those Commonwealth soliders who are still cared for thousands of miles from where they envisaged being buried.

What I find apalling is the scientific exhibit aspect of this to which the University appears more than a little insensitive. H.

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

Eileen, my feeling is that the outcome will be decided quite suddenly, when we least expect it, and in spite of everything, he will stay in Leicester, with a view to reinterment in May next year, or thereabouts. That's just my feeling, because to change to York now, after all this, and when Leicester Cathedral is so far forward in preparing a resting place, will cause much more trouble and expense than if things are allowed to proceed as at present seems to be the case. The financial aspect has to be taken into account, even though it offends sensibilities. And let us face it, York would have to find an awful lot of money and a suitable place, without being granted a long time in which to achieve it. Does it wish to embark upon this sort of costly, knotty problem? I really cannot tell, and no matter what, at this distance it really is impossible to say without doubt that Richard, once he became king, would have chosen to be buried in York. Nor Leicester, of course, but that was where he died, and where he was originally buried at Greyfriars, according to Christian rites. He also eventually had a tombstone. Leicester has had him for all that time, and the people of Leicester cannot be said to have hated and reviled him, or of caring less than anywhere else. The Powers That Be will opt for the easiest solution, and that means letting Leicester bring to a conclusion the work it has started. This is just my take on the matter, I hasten to repeat. I do not have inside knowledge, nor am I trying to poke York on the nose. It just seems obvious to me that this is how it will be resolved.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: EILEEN BATES

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:08 PM

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Yorkshire Post article

Do you know what Sandra...I beginning to think that the reinternment is not going to take place any time soon....I can see delay after delay looming....Aw I can't even go there it just makes me despair...Eileen --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: >

> I only hope Leicester Cathedral is not being lumped together with the disgraceful antics of the university? Somehow it feels as if it is, yet no House of God would countenance the shabby displaying someoneâs remains, least of all the remains of an anointed king. The cathedral wants to give Richard a dignified and appropriate resting place. And please do not say that is it only for the money. It will not be âonly for the moneyâ. > > Iâm afraid the universityâs behaviour reveals just how profane so much of modern life has become. Richard was not treated with respect when he was found. It seemed to me that certain members of the university archaeological team were actually smirking and sniggering about his discovery, and about those who supported Richard and therefore thought highly of him. There was even some silly lip-biting and girly simpering when his skull was broken so very carelessly! Very professional. Smirking is never becoming, nor are truly great careers and reputations built upon it. Here today, gone tomorrow is more like it. You gets what you deserves.

> > Hm, sorry for the outburst, but the more I am reminded of it, the more disgusted I get. > > Sandra > =^..^= > From: christineholmes651@... > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:28 PM > To: > Subject: Re: Yorkshire Post article > > > David and Wendy want as many people to see this as possible so pass it on please. > best Wishes > Christine > Loyaulte me Lie > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote: > > > > Yes...thanks for posting Christine. I sometimes think I am pretty unshockable when you read everyday of actions by people who should know better....but I was wrong..when I read that Leicester Uni wanted to put Richard's bones on public display my stomach did a somersault ...I can scarce believe it. Whoever dreamed this idea up should hang their head in shame...it's absolutely dispicable really and thank God there are people around who still have morals to put a stop to it. > > > > I once believed that Richard was lying somewhere suitable while this fiasco continues yet I've got a horrible feeling he's somewhere on a shelf in a cardboard box. > > > > Why should Richard's remains be subjected to this ongoing poking about.What else is there they hope to find out? We have been told the way he died, ate a lot of fish and now recently the scintillating news that he had worms. Thanks for that... I hope the Cathdral tell whoever it is who wants him buried in such a way that his remains can be got at any time they fancy to take a long walk of a short pier...Honestly you couldn't make it up. Eileen > > > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting....I hope the drip, drip, drip of censure turns the tide! > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:16 AM, "christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>" <christineholmes651@<mailto:christineholmes651@>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know if anyone has seen this, it's in Yorkshire Post this am. God Bless David and Wendy > > > http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/university-hijacked-richard-iii-bones-discovery-1-6063349 > > > > > > Loyaulte me Lie > > > Christine > > > > > >