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 WishesChristineLoyaulte 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
14:38Subject: 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.RegardsDavid

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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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.ChristineLoyaulte 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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, 16:21Subject: 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,
8:02Subject: [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,
8:02Subject: [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,
16:37Subject: 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,
15:32Subject: 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, 14:38Subject: 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!VickieSent 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!VickieSent from my iPadOn 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.
>