Funds Row

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

I thought I was the only one here who thought it rather minimalist and beautiful. If you want to go back to the fifteenth century do you really want the cadaver underneath, or then we could have the Victorian table tomb with everything under the sun on it and beloved of the country gentry in every churchyard? And he will have done a lot better than Edward IV, whose planned tomb never happened. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: Funds Row
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: Funds Row

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Oh dear....it just goes on and on doesn't it. Personally I don't like the design at all but I am just a teeny tadpole in a massive ocean and I will not be asking for my donation back, More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Well...  It's awkward.  The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction.  However, what's the tipping point?  Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift?  Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object?  Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise?  This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
>
> Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself.  But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
>
> What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other.  In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
> Subject: Funds Row
>
>
>
>  
> I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
>  
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

All donations were appealed for on the basis of it being the Society's choice of the 'Lost in Castles/ Johnsons' design. Small modifications could have been allowed if the donors approved.We have always had the assurance that we get our money returned, on an individual basis, if the tomb is not to our satisfaction. .......in Jonathon's words, every contributor has a veto with regard to their own donation.Unfortunately, the article has used the word 'withdrawn' which gives quite the wrong impression. It was never offered for anything other than 'our' tomb. Fortunately, the monies are safely in the Society's coffers, or I'd fear for their safe return!

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:22
Subject: Re: Funds Row

Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: Funds Row

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

On re-reading the article I notice it reads that the original date of May 2014 for the re-burial of Richard's remains now now changed to "now happen by the end of August" when the two year licence expires. What?! Is the the result of the endless wrangling....This is what I was worried about,,,Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear....it just goes on and on doesn't it. Personally I don't like the design at all but I am just a teeny tadpole in a massive ocean and I will not be asking for my donation back, More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Well...  It's awkward.  The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction.  However, what's the tipping point?  Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift?  Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object?  Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise?  This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
> >
> > Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself.  But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
> >
> > What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other.  In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
> > Subject: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> > or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the
> > impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> > haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> > because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> > respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> > moral high ground.
> >  
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
>

> More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His > tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen

What a lovely way of putting it!
Jonathan

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Funds Row

Oh dear....it just goes on and on doesn't it. Personally I don't like the design at all but I am just a teeny tadpole in a massive ocean and I will not be asking for my donation back, More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
>
> Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
>
> What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
> Subject: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Â
> Iâ¬"ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. Iâ¬"m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe Iâ¬"m in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we canâ¬"t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
> Â
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

Yes, well there is the legal challenge to go through and who knows how long that will take.
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>


On re-reading the article I notice it reads that the original date of May 2014 for the re-burial of Richard's remains now now changed to "now happen by the end of August" when the two year licence expires. What?! Is the the result of the endless wrangling....This is what I was worried about,,,Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear....it just goes on and on doesn't it. Personally I don't like the design at all but I am just a teeny tadpole in a massive ocean and I will not be asking for my donation back, More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
> >
> > Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
> >
> > What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
> > Subject: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Iâ¬"ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. Iâ¬"m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> > or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe Iâ¬"m in error? But the
> > impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> > haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> > because we canâ¬"t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> > respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> > moral high ground.
> > Â
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
>

The end of August? The 22nd perchance? Are they aiming now for the anniversary of Bosworth? Or, as you say Eileen, has it been forced on them because of the wrangling? I don't actually know the precise dates of the licence. From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

On re-reading the article I notice it reads that the original date of May 2014 for the re-burial of Richard's remains now now changed to "now happen by the end of August" when the two year licence expires. What?! Is the the result of the endless wrangling....This is what I was worried about,,,Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear....it just goes on and on doesn't it. Personally I don't like the design at all but I am just a teeny tadpole in a massive ocean and I will not be asking for my donation back, More important to me is that I know that I contributed towards King Richard's tomb...to me that is the important thing here. His tomb, in whatever shape will be around a very long time after I am no mores and I will have let a tiny little mark....Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
> >
> > Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
> >
> > What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
> > Subject: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> > or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the
> > impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> > haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> > because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> > respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> > moral high ground.
> > Â
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
>

But how much choice did the contributors actually have about that original design promoted by the society? I did not rejoin the society until after that had all been decided, so I do not know the terms and so on, but I do know that when the design was made public, it had as many thumbs-down as thumbs-up. I thought it was clunky. Besides, I had not contributed. But did all those who did contribute feel satisfied their money would be used as they wanted? Or did some take one look and want to withdraw their money? I felt it was presented as a sort of fait accompli, appearing suddenly on TV without any warning. It is a modern design, crisply so, but not really much more in period' than the Leicester Cathedral design, only slightly more conventional in our eyes. We can't all have what we all want. It's impossible. When I rejoined I made a contribution to the society's funds. I haven't necessarily approved of everything the society has done since then, or the sentiments expressed, but it has not occurred to me to ask for my money back. Sandra From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

All donations were appealed for on the basis of it being the Society's choice of the 'Lost in Castles/ Johnsons' design. Small modifications could have been allowed if the donors approved. We have always had the assurance that we get our money returned, on an individual basis, if the tomb is not to our satisfaction. .......in Jonathon's words, every contributor has a veto with regard to their own donation. Unfortunately, the article has used the word 'withdrawn' which gives quite the wrong impression. It was never offered for anything other than 'our' tomb. Fortunately, the monies are safely in the Society's coffers, or I'd fear for their safe return!

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:22
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

But how much choice did the contributors actually have about that original design promoted by the society? I did not rejoin the society until after that had all been decided, so I do not know the terms and so on, but I do know that when the design was made public, it had as many thumbs-down as thumbs-up. I thought it was clunky. Besides, I had not contributed. But did all those who did contribute feel satisfied their money would be used as they wanted? Or did some take one look and want to withdraw their money? I felt it was presented as a sort of fait accompli, appearing suddenly on TV without any warning. It is a modern design, crisply so, but not really much more in period' than the Leicester Cathedral design, only slightly more conventional in our eyes. We can't all have what we all want. It's impossible. When I rejoined I made a contribution to the society's funds. I haven't necessarily approved of everything the society has done since then, or the sentiments expressed, but it has not occurred to me to ask for my money back. Sandra From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

All donations were appealed for on the basis of it being the Society's choice of the 'Lost in Castles/ Johnsons' design. Small modifications could have been allowed if the donors approved. We have always had the assurance that we get our money returned, on an individual basis, if the tomb is not to our satisfaction. .......in Jonathon's words, every contributor has a veto with regard to their own donation. Unfortunately, the article has used the word 'withdrawn' which gives quite the wrong impression. It was never offered for anything other than 'our' tomb. Fortunately, the monies are safely in the Society's coffers, or I'd fear for their safe return!

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:22
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

If I remember rightly, we had a computer-generated images from several angles placed before us, before we had to make any decision on whether to donate. This also provided a chance for anyone to criticise the design. It seemed that there was a fairly overwhelming 'pro' reacton to it....although one can never the gauge the silent majority, of course.It's revealing that although they only needed £30,000, an overflow of £10,000 came flooding in before it could be announced that the target had been reached almost immediately. The tomb and the money was offered as a gift, whereupon the Cathedral stated it was unacceptable as they had no room!
Ron
(Sorry, I inadvertently spelled Jonathan's name wrong earlier.) From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:06
Subject: Re: Funds Row

But how much choice did the contributors actually have about that original design promoted by the society? I did not rejoin the society until after that had all been decided, so I do not know the terms and so on, but I do know that when the design was made public, it had as many thumbs-down as thumbs-up. I thought it was clunky. Besides, I had not contributed. But did all those who did contribute feel satisfied their money would be used as they wanted? Or did some take one look and want to withdraw their money? I felt it was presented as a sort of fait accompli, appearing suddenly on TV without any warning. It is a modern design, crisply so, but not really much more in period' than the Leicester Cathedral design, only slightly more conventional in our eyes. We can't all have what we all want. It's impossible. When I rejoined I made a contribution to the society's funds. I haven't necessarily approved of everything the society has done since then, or the sentiments expressed, but it has not occurred to me to ask for my money back. Sandra From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row All donations were appealed for on the basis of it being the Society's choice of the 'Lost in Castles/ Johnsons' design. Small modifications could have been allowed if the donors approved. We have always had the assurance that we get our money returned, on an individual basis, if the tomb is not to our satisfaction. .......in Jonathon's words, every contributor has a veto with regard to their own donation. Unfortunately, the article has used the word 'withdrawn' which gives quite the wrong impression. It was never offered for anything other than 'our' tomb. Fortunately, the monies are safely in the Society's coffers, or I'd fear for their safe return!

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:22
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well... It's awkward. The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction. However, what's the tipping point? Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift? Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise? This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself. But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other. In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

I'm sorry to say it, but it seems as if we are more concerned about how the Society comes off in this whole debacle than we are with getting it right for Richard. There is significant difference of opinion on what that "right" is, and as long as people feel as if their opinions have been & are being ignored by those involved in the process, there will continue to be unpleasant publicity.
A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, RONALD COOKSLEY <greyfox.cooksley@...> wrote:
 

If I remember rightly, we had a computer-generated images from several angles placed before us, before we had to make any decision on whether to donate. This also provided a chance for anyone to criticise the design. It seemed that there was a fairly overwhelming 'pro' reacton to it....although one can never the gauge the silent majority, of course. It's revealing that although they only needed £30,000,  an overflow of £10,000 came flooding in before it could be announced that the target had been reached almost immediately.  The tomb and the money was offered as a gift, whereupon the Cathedral stated it was unacceptable as they had no room!
Ron  
(Sorry, I inadvertently spelled Jonathan's name wrong earlier.) From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:06
Subject: Re: Funds Row

  But how much choice did the contributors actually have about that original design promoted by the society? I did not rejoin the society until after that had all been decided, so I do not know the terms and so on, but I do know that when the design was made public, it had as many thumbs-down as thumbs-up. I thought it was clunky. Besides, I had not contributed. But did all those who did contribute feel satisfied their money would be used as they wanted? Or did some take one look and want to withdraw their money? I felt it was presented as a sort of fait accompli, appearing suddenly on TV without any warning. It is a modern design, crisply so, but not really much more in period' than the Leicester Cathedral design, only slightly more conventional in our eyes. We can't all have what we all want. It's impossible. When I rejoined I made a contribution to the society's funds. I haven't necessarily approved of everything the society has done since then, or the sentiments expressed, but it has not occurred to me to ask for my money back.   Sandra   From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:45 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     All donations were appealed for on the basis of it being the Society's choice of the 'Lost in Castles/ Johnsons' design. Small modifications could have been allowed if the donors  approved. We have always had the assurance that we get our money returned, on an individual basis, if the tomb is not to our satisfaction. .......in Jonathon's words, every contributor has a veto with regard to their own donation. Unfortunately, the article has used the word 'withdrawn' which gives quite the wrong impression. It was never offered for anything other than 'our' tomb. Fortunately, the monies are safely in the Society's coffers, or I'd fear for their safe return!

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:22
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
    Well...  It's awkward.  The Society was going to commit £40,000 and it's difficult for it to blindly go ahead if there's genuine dissatisfaction.  However, what's the tipping point?  Does every contributor have a veto on whether or not their donation should be used according to the terms of the gift?  Does the Society review the donation if, say, over 55% object?  Or is it a knee-jerk reaction based on background noise?  This is all stuff that - I hope - was carefully considered before donations were solicited in the first place.
Personally, while I like the space very much, I have reservations about the table-top tomb itself.  But I've only seen three cgi representations, and I'd like to know more about the reasons behind the choices and the demands of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.
What I think *is* unfortunate is the perception - regardless of specific rights or wrongs - of various parties briefing against each other.  In those circumstances, it could look to those with only an indirect interest in the matter as though the Society has ceded the high ground.
Jonathan
  From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 13:52
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
    I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>> I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.

The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...

Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: Funds Row

It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Yes, perhaps the term spin doctor, like the warrior king, was a bit over the top. But as you say most people in the public sector/public eye know to adher to a basic set of rules, like having just one spokesperson who makes sure they don't put their foot in it; - says she who was once on the front page of the News of the World for a public org - what fame!!:)
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Funds Row


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>> I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.

The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...

Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

You had an orgy in public! Wow....:0). Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, perhaps the term spin doctor, like the warrior king, was a bit over the top. But as you say most people in the public sector/public eye know to adher to a basic set of rules, like having just one spokesperson who makes sure they don't put their foot in it; -  says she who was once on the front page of the News of the World for a public org - what fame!!:)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:39
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process.  I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released.  It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
>
> I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
>
> Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful.  It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off.  They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>  
> It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>  
> “Or else” threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when
> it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found
> and therefore never reburied at all. He’s our king only because we support him,
> not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our
> own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn’t. And I
> admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an
> insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this
> happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned
> a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society’s
> reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is
> a terrible shame.
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>  
> Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits
> the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a
> laughing stock.  It is all very sad.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
>  
>
> I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

Forgot the important dot! Nah nothing that spectaculor, more's the pity :)
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 16:08
Subject: Re: Funds Row
You had an orgy in public! Wow....:0). Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, perhaps the term spin doctor, like the warrior king, was a bit over the top. But as you say most people in the public sector/public eye know to adher to a basic set of rules, like having just one spokesperson who makes sure they don't put their foot in it; - says she who was once on the front page of the News of the World for a public org - what fame!!:)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:39
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
>
> I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
>
> Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when
> it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found
> and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him,
> not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our
> own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I
> admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an
> insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this
> happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned
> a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's
> reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is
> a terrible shame.
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits
> the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a
> laughing stock. It is all very sad.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
>
>
> I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

I was afraid to comment! After a dismal afternoon of posts, I hoped things were suddenly brightening up big time! <g> From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 4:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

You had an orgy in public! Wow....:0). Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, perhaps the term spin doctor, like the warrior king, was a bit over the top. But as you say most people in the public sector/public eye know to adher to a basic set of rules, like having just one spokesperson who makes sure they don't put their foot in it;Â - Â says she who was once on the front page of the News of the World for a public org - what fame!!:)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:39
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
>
> I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
>
> Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> “Or else” threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when
> it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found
> and therefore never reburied at all. He’s our king only because we support him,
> not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our
> own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn’t. And I
> admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an
> insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this
> happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned
> a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society’s
> reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is
> a terrible shame.
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits
> the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a
> laughing stock. It is all very sad.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
> Â
>
> I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.

The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...

Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row

It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Glad to have obliged - inadvertently :)
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 16:12
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
I was afraid to comment! After a dismal afternoon of posts, I hoped things were suddenly brightening up big time! <g> From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 4:08 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row You had an orgy in public! Wow....:0). Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, perhaps the term spin doctor, like the warrior king, was a bit over the top. But as you say most people in the public sector/public eye know to adher to a basic set of rules, like having just one spokesperson who makes sure they don't put their foot in it;Â - Â says she who was once on the front page of the News of the World for a public org - what fame!!:)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:39
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
>
> I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
>
> Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> âOr elseâ threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when
> it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found
> and therefore never reburied at all. Heâs our king only because we support him,
> not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our
> own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isnât. And I
> admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an
> insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this
> happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned
> a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the societyâs
> reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is
> a terrible shame.
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
> Â
> Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits
> the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a
> laughing stock. It is all very sad.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
> Â
>
> Iâve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. Iâm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly
> or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe Iâm in error? But the
> impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather
> haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions
> because we canât have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and
> respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the
> moral high ground.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

An incisive point - much like Richard's lance.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM

 

ÿ

"Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.

The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process.  I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released.  It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful.  It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off.  They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...

Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row

  It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=

An incisive point - much like Richard's lance.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM

 

ÿ

"Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.

The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process.  I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released.  It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful.  It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off.  They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...

Jonathan

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row

  It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

Sandra wrote:


The end of August? The 22nd perchance? Are they aiming now for the anniversary of Bosworth? Or, as you say Eileen, has it been forced on them because of the wrangling? I don't actually know the precise dates of the licence.

Carol responds:

Possibly August 23, the date he was found and, coincidentally or not, the anniversary of his original burial. I would find that quite appropriate, actually.

Carol

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
 

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on  what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

I gather that the likely date of the original burial was 25th Aug - and this was why that date was chosen to begin the dig in Leicester last year.

However, if the legal procedure continues, the "licence" such as it is, will be set aside (including any dates) - I would imagine the process would have some dates incorporated into whatever gets decided. At present Leicester seems gearing up to a mid-May date; should it swing into the province of York, I imagine there would be some date fixed around either 22nd/25th Aug or 2nd Oct next year.

It's fair for people to withdraw their donations, and for the Society to do the same. The whole thing is under a legal challenge so none of this should be happening right now.

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

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

Leicester Cathedral All you 'great warrior king' peeps are entitled to your POV. But it's not the only one... And you're absolutely right it needs to fit into a cathedral context. Which is a place with only one King of kings... That's another POV! 3 hours ago via mobile

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Leicester-Cathedral/325613701733

This responds on Cathedral facebook page doesn't sound like they are willing to listen to feedback.

--- In , <> wrote:

I gather that the likely date of the original burial was 25th Aug - and this was why that date was chosen to begin the dig in Leicester last year.

However, if the legal procedure continues, the "licence" such as it is, will be set aside (including any dates) - I would imagine the process would have some dates incorporated into whatever gets decided. At present Leicester seems gearing up to a mid-May date; should it swing into the province of York, I imagine there would be some date fixed around either 22nd/25th Aug or 2nd Oct next year.

It's fair for people to withdraw their donations, and for the Society to do the same. The whole thing is under a legal challenge so none of this should be happening right now.

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

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

I see there is a lot more in the news now about the funds row. And this http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy. Apparently she knows' Richard wanted to be buried at York. How come she knows this certain fact when no one else does? The vibes in Las Vegas must be good. =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row

I gather that the likely date of the original burial was 25th Aug - and this was why that date was chosen to begin the dig in Leicester last year.

However, if the legal procedure continues, the "licence" such as it is, will be set aside (including any dates) - I would imagine the process would have some dates incorporated into whatever gets decided. At present Leicester seems gearing up to a mid-May date; should it swing into the province of York, I imagine there would be some date fixed around either 22nd/25th Aug or 2nd Oct next year.

It's fair for people to withdraw their donations, and for the Society to do the same. The whole thing is under a legal challenge so none of this should be happening right now.

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

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

Or the vodka!
On Sep 24, 2013, at 4:25 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

I see there is a lot more in the news now about the funds row. And this http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy. Apparently she knows' Richard wanted to be buried at York. How come she knows this certain fact when no one else does? The vibes in Las Vegas must be good. =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row

I gather that the likely date of the original burial was 25th Aug - and this was why that date was chosen to begin the dig in Leicester last year.

However, if the legal procedure continues, the "licence" such as it is, will be set aside (including any dates) - I would imagine the process would have some dates incorporated into whatever gets decided. At present Leicester seems gearing up to a mid-May date; should it swing into the province of York, I imagine there would be some date fixed around either 22nd/25th Aug or 2nd Oct next year.

It's fair for people to withdraw their donations, and for the Society to do the same. The whole thing is under a legal challenge so none of this should be happening right now.

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

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

As Elvira says in reverential squeaks, "Las Vegas!!!"

I, too, find the tomb unthrilling, but a million times better than their original chunk floor stone.

Sheffe


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

I see there is a lot more in the news now about the funds row. And this http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy. Apparently she knows' Richard wanted to be buried at York. How come she knows this certain fact when no one else does? The vibes in Las Vegas must be good. =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:43 PM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row I gather that the likely date of the original burial was 25th Aug - and this was why that date was chosen to begin the dig in Leicester last year. However, if the legal procedure continues, the "licence" such as it is, will be set aside (including any dates) - I would imagine the process would have some dates incorporated into whatever gets decided. At present Leicester seems gearing up to a mid-May date; should it swing into the province of York, I imagine there would be some date fixed around either 22nd/25th Aug or 2nd Oct next year. It's fair for people to withdraw their donations, and for the Society to do the same. The whole thing is under a legal challenge so none of this should be happening right now.


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

Something from the US media --
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/las-vegas-woman-fights-king-richard-iiis-legacy

A J

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Sandra wrote:
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
Carol responds:

Well, since the Society chairman Phil Stone called the design "utterly inspired" (sorry for misquoting him the other day--I thought he said "utterly uninspired"!), I don't think it's fair to blame the Society for criticizing the tomb (even though I, for one, share Philippa's view). Nor is it fair to criticize people for withdrawing funds contributed for a completely different design in the belief that it had been approved. The article appears to be somewhat slanted, not reflecting their reasons for withdrawing their contributions. (It's like paying in advance for a traditional wedding dress and being given a modern one instead. Wouldn't you want your money back? I would.)

Anyway, moral high ground or not, the cathedral wants the tomb to match its design, and it's a modern cathedral--or modern society's notion of a cathedral--so I can see their perspective, too. So I say let the people who funded a different design withdraw their funds, their way of expressing dissatisfaction and their right not to spend their money on what they consider to be an inappropriate design. At the same time, let the cathedral have it's shoebox. At least, the boar, the motto, and the name are there even if only in the circle outside the rose, and at least the tomb isn't a slab and will be prominently displayed. It's a compromise, the best we're going to get--unless, of course, York wins the debate and chooses to implement the old design, in which case, the Society members are free to recontribute.

What a mess! BTW, we in the U.S. hear nothing whatever about this squabble except via the Internet. I imagine that televised coverage of the memorial service will come as a surprise to the commentators who still think that finding the bones of a "hunchback tyrant" is something of a joke. To be sure, they've had a lot of horrific news to deal with lately and the historical significance of Richard III probably goes completely over their heads.

Carol

Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone.

I believe Henry Tudor knighted his uncle John Welles on 7th August 1485, on landing at Milford Haven. Henry wasn't even Earl of Pembroke at that time, so just when did he decide his reign had commenced? =^..^= From: JF Madore Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood? From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn't an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can't use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row

Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen

--- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it.  For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used.  Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise?  I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction.  I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else.  At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to.  I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece.  Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone.
>

He wasn't even sure himself...he just made it up as he went along...

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I believe Henry Tudor knighted his uncle John Welles on 7th August 1485, on landing at Milford Haven. Henry wasn’t even Earl of Pembroke at that time, so just when did he decide his reign had commenced? =^..^=
>
> From: JF Madore
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> An incisive point - much like Richard's lance.
> Jonathan
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM
>
> 
> "Sir William Brandon"?
> He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Evans
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
> The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister').
> I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop.
> Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
>
> Jonathan
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> “Or else” threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He’s our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn’t. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society’s reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Funds Row
>
>
> Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad.
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
>
> I’ve just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I’m dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I’m in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can’t have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>

Don't know if anyone else has seen this from today's Yorkshire Post. Surely nothing much has changed to bring York to the fore, and I find it even more disrespectful that bets are being taken. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/odds-improve-on-york-re-burial-for-richard-iii-1-6078589 Sharon ----- Original Message ----- From: Mhairi Gibbons To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row

I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone.

I fully agree with Mhaire and Eileen. I prefer the Society design - but have no intention of going to battle on the issue. Good grief, there are so many issues being contended - location of re-interment, nature of ceremony, rights of "descendants", scientific squabbles, etc. etc. Will this king's bones ever find a non-car park place to rest? Not by May 2014, I shouldn't think... Any time in 2014?
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:17:13 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen

--- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone.
>

Thank you, Stephen. I wasn't clear on what seemed a basic issue. But then, those whom the King delegated... (I understand the point about Henry being under attainder. He wasn't a landholder, was he? Not even by "right" of his mother? )
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn't an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can't use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

It is sad, pitiful, and perversely amusing. I just want to poor man to be entombed as a king should be.
On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "JF Madore" <jfmadore@...> wrote:

I fully agree with Mhaire and Eileen. I prefer the Society design - but have no intention of going to battle on the issue. Good grief, there are so many issues being contended - location of re-interment, nature of ceremony, rights of "descendants", scientific squabbles, etc. etc. Will this king's bones ever find a non-car park place to rest? Not by May 2014, I shouldn't think... Any time in 2014?
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:17:13 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen

--- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone.
>

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/regional/richard-iii-petition-misses-target-1-6081746 How many e-petitions are there? I did not know about this 100,000-signature matter. =^..^= From: JF Madore Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:00 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row

Thank you, Stephen. I wasn't clear on what seemed a basic issue. But then, those whom the King delegated... (I understand the point about Henry being under attainder. He wasn't a landholder, was he? Not even by "right" of his mother? ) From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn't an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can't use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood? From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

ÿ He certainly wasn't a landholder - the attainder had seen to that. Think of the Earl of Essex fighting in Ireland. Elizabeth had ordered him not to knight his followers but he did. This was part of his treason and those of his followers who were also convicted were executed as commoners.
There could only be one King of England at a time. Before the battle, it was Richard. Afterwards, when Richard was dead, it was "Tudor". ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row

Thank you, Stephen. I wasn't clear on what seemed a basic issue. But then, those whom the King delegated... (I understand the point about Henry being under attainder. He wasn't a landholder, was he? Not even by "right" of his mother? )
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn't an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can't use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
Jonathan

I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
Jonathan

Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.

Jonathan


From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
Jonathan

The 'old crook back' lets him down; even if it is meant to be funny. Didn't know Anne's bones had gone missing. Just thought they couldn't find her, which is not surprising given the mess the Abbey burial vaults are supposed to be in.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:56
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word. Jonathan

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess. On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote: Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
Jonathan

This whole fuss now is down to one thing  Richard's reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset. At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it's a complete dog's breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard's personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are high places' in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can't get much more royal than that. And I want the whole bldy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that's what Henry Tudor's forces were. I don't care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It's the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now. So that's what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don't care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It's plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him! And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul's hasn't been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM. What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It's him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You'll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we'd be a dull lot. So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please. Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I'm afraid. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.

Jonathan

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...? Jonathan

Hello,
I am aware that Henry of Richmond knighted 8 of his followers on landing in Wales. The list does include Welles, but not Brandon.

The 500 exiles with Henry in Brittany started to treat him as 'king' after the oath at Rennes cathedral and swore allegiance to him. As you point out, any knighting would have no validity unless he gained the crown.

I am not aware of an attainder against Henry - but I could be wrong. He was after all, innocent of any treason and only 14 when he was forced into exile. I thought the title was simply forfeit.

The treating of a potential usurper as king before the matter was settled was not at all unusual. Lambert Simnel was "crowned" in Dublin, but that had little effect.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 10:10:10 AM

 

ÿ

He certainly wasn't a landholder - the attainder had seen to that. Think of the Earl of Essex fighting in Ireland. Elizabeth had ordered him not to knight his followers but he did. This was part of his treason and those of his followers who were also convicted were executed as commoners.
There could only be one King of England at a time. Before the battle, it was Richard. Afterwards, when Richard was dead, it was "Tudor". ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
 

Thank you, Stephen. I wasn't clear on what seemed a basic issue. But then, those whom the King delegated... (I  understand the point about Henry being under attainder. He wasn't a landholder, was he? Not even by "right" of his mother? )  
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
  ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn't an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can't use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
  Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  An incisive point - much like Richard's lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM   ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row  
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. The Society's approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process.  I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released.  It's been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase 'Yes, Minister'). I'm not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who's worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I'm not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England's last "warrior king" was massively helpful.  It's the kind of phrase that's going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off.  They'll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=

Don't apologise. It deserves a round of applause. :-)

Jonathan


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 14:01
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

This whole fuss now is down to one thing  Richard's reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset. At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it's a complete dog's breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard's personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are high places' in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can't get much more royal than that. And I want the whole bldy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that's what Henry Tudor's forces were. I don't care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It's the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now. So that's what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don't care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It's plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him! And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul's hasn't been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM. What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It's him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You'll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we'd be a dull lot. So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please. Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I'm afraid. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.

Jonathan

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...? Jonathan

ÿ Brandon was "knighted" during the journey from Milford Haven to Bosworth. Henry had been attainted in 1461 along with his uncle Jasper and "grandfather" Owen - the CP says so. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:09 PM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row

Hello,
I am aware that Henry of Richmond knighted 8 of his followers on landing in Wales. The list does include Welles, but not Brandon.

The 500 exiles with Henry in Brittany started to treat him as x27;kingx27; after the oath at Rennes cathedral and swore allegiance to him. As you point out, any knighting would have no validity unless he gained the crown.

I am not aware of an attainder against Henry - but I could be wrong. He was after all, innocent of any treason and only 14 when he was forced into exile. I thought the title was simply forfeit.

The treating of a potential usurper as king before the matter was settled was not at all unusual. Lambert Simnel was "crowned" in Dublin, but that had little effect.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 10:10:10 AM

ÿ

He certainly wasn&apos;t a landholder - the attainder had seen to that. Think of the Earl of Essex fighting in Ireland. Elizabeth had ordered him not to knight his followers but he did. This was part of his treason and those of his followers who were also convicted were executed as commoners.
There could only be one King of England at a time. Before the battle, it was Richard. Afterwards, when Richard was dead, it was "Tudor". ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row

Thank you, Stephen. I wasn&apos;t clear on what seemed a basic issue. But then, those whom the King delegated... (I understand the point about Henry being under attainder. He wasn&apos;t a landholder, was he? Not even by "right" of his mother? )
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
ÿ No. Only the King and those he had delegated. Henry was under attainder so he wasn&apos;t an Earl and no such rights. Even his surname is now in question so I can&apos;t use that with confidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: JF Madore To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
Did the lord of a manor not have the right to confer knighthood?
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
An incisive point - much like Richard&apos;s lance. Jonathan Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 4:12:07 PM ÿ "Sir William Brandon"? He died before the battle was over, whilst Richard was alive and still King. Only the King can knight people. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Funds Row
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> > I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that&apos;s they way of life. The Society&apos;s approach has certainly been less than sure-footed throughout this process. I thought the first major miscalculation was how their own tomb design was released. It&apos;s been an odd mix of overt passivity followed by "we must do something / *this* is something / therefore we must do it!" (to paraphrase &apos;Yes, Minister&apos;). I&apos;m not sure they need Malcolm Tucker, exactly, (although Peter Capaldi in his next role would come in very handy!) but they do need the very basic acquaintance with media relations that every small charity (speaking as someone who&apos;s worked for several) has to develop. Re the tomb, I&apos;m not sure that the comment (from Philippa?) about something befitting England&apos;s last "warrior king" was massively helpful. It&apos;s the kind of phrase that&apos;s going to ring alarm bells with the CofE from the off. They&apos;ll celebrate the king, the legislator, the champion of justice... and remember he died bravely... but will probably want to elide the skewering of Sir William Brandon...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear &apos;eccentrics&apos;. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that&apos;s they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn&apos;t get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

The 'one thing' is the current encumbent of the throne.........can't bear to say the 'Q' word!She refused to 'accept' him from the go-get. I'll say no more, as Royal Patronage is one of the few other things in her immediate remit. I feel very sorry for our Patron. he is hog-tied so to speak. Prince Michael, who I believe is financially independent, appears to be the only one of the family who has spoken out.Great post, Sandra, Ron.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 14:01
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

This whole fuss now is down to one thing  Richard's reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset. At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it's a complete dog's breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard's personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are high places' in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can't get much more royal than that. And I want the whole bldy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that's what Henry Tudor's forces were. I don't care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It's the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now. So that's what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don't care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It's plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him! And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul's hasn't been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM. What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It's him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You'll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we'd be a dull lot. So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please. Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I'm afraid. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.

Jonathan

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...? Jonathan

I agree H
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 14:14
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Don't apologise. It deserves a round of applause. :-) Jonathan

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 14:01
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
This whole fuss now is down to one thing  Richard's reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset. At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it's a complete dog's breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard's personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are high places' in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can't get much more royal than that. And I want the whole bldy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that's what Henry Tudor's forces were. I don't care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It's the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now. So that's what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don't care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It's plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him! And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul's hasn't been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM. What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It's him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You'll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we'd be a dull lot. So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please. Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I'm afraid. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word. Jonathan
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess. On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote: Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...? Jonathan

I'm puzzled that some members of the R3 Society contemplate withdrawing contributions for Richard's tomb if they can't dictate its design. Richard doesn't belong to us. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" design; preferences are a matter of varying artistic sensibilities. Surely the important thing is to insure a dignified memorial, regardless of whether or not it's any one person's preferred design. I too like the chapel Leicester is planning, as well as the fact that they're not just sticking him in some open corner. They've managed to carve out a special place of honor at the heart of the cathedral. How cool is that!

I rather like the idea of a modern tomb design. (I even like the elegant simplicity of Leicester's design.) Of course, Richard was a medieval king. But the 15th century left him to the Franciscans for a private burial, and the 16th century tore down the church from over his head and abandoned his grave to the elements. It's the 21st century that went looking for him and intends to honor him in a manner befitting a king of England. It seems appropriate for his memorial to include elements of this century as well as of his own. Rest in peace, Your Grace; the 21st century salutes you! (And wouldn't it be fascinating to know what he'd have thought could he have known that people in the 21st century would get all wrapped around the axle trying to decide how best to honor him?)

Kay Wade

Yes, to Pamela and Eileen. I concur.from Judith (or jfmadore, whatever on this dire yahoo format :) )
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Funds Row
It is sad, pitiful, and perversely amusing. I just want to poor man to be entombed as a king should be. On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "JF Madore" <jfmadore@...> wrote: I fully agree with Mhaire and Eileen. I prefer the Society design - but have no intention of going to battle on the issue. Good grief, there are so many issues being contended - location of re-interment, nature of ceremony, rights of "descendants", scientific squabbles, etc. etc. Will this king's bones ever find a non-car park place to rest? Not by May 2014, I shouldn't think... Any time in 2014?
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To: mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:17:13 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen --- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote: > > I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone. >

I was trying to comment on Sandra Machin's heartfelt remarks but this *#^%& new format keeps putting me elsewhere.

The first thing I ever read about R3 as a child (sparking a lifelong, if mostly dormant until recently, interest) included the legend that his grave was destroyed. That struck me as particularly awful, and I was really elated to find out it wasn't true. I envisioned a state funeral, I really did, and never thought for one moment that it would not happen in some form. I didn't expect Westminster, but I did expect a proper, official ceremony with full military honors. And I expected to be a spectator (I'm in the USA by the way). And now....

I'm nowhere as eloquent but I feel the same.

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

Yes, to Pamela and Eileen. I concur.from Judith (or jfmadore, whatever on this dire yahoo format :) )
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Funds Row
It is sad, pitiful, and perversely amusing. I just want to poor man to be entombed as a king should be. On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "JF Madore" <jfmadore@...> wrote: I fully agree with Mhaire and Eileen. I prefer the Society design - but have no intention of going to battle on the issue. Good grief, there are so many issues being contended - location of re-interment, nature of ceremony, rights of "descendants", scientific squabbles, etc. etc. Will this king's bones ever find a non-car park place to rest? Not by May 2014, I shouldn't think... Any time in 2014?
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To: mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:17:13 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen --- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote: > > I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone. >

Well said, Kay.
From: kjw414 <kjw414@...>

I'm puzzled that some members of the R3 Society contemplate withdrawing contributions for Richard's tomb if they can't dictate its design. Richard doesn't belong to us. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" design; preferences are a matter of varying artistic sensibilities. Surely the important thing is to insure a dignified memorial, regardless of whether or not it's any one person's preferred design. I too like the chapel Leicester is planning, as well as the fact that they're not just sticking him in some open corner. They've managed to carve out a special place of honor at the heart of the cathedral. How cool is that!

I rather like the idea of a modern tomb design. (I even like the elegant simplicity of Leicester's design.) Of course, Richard was a medieval king. But the 15th century left him to the Franciscans for a private burial, and the 16th century tore down the church from over his head and abandoned his grave to the elements. It's the 21st century that went looking for him and intends to honor him in a manner befitting a king of England. It seems appropriate for his memorial to include elements of this century as well as of his own. Rest in peace, Your Grace; the 21st century salutes you! (And wouldn't it be fascinating to know what he'd have thought could he have known that people in the 21st century would get all wrapped around the axle trying to decide how best to honor him?)

Kay Wade

Absolutely. It's a twenty-first century tribute to the King - not many monarchs dead so long get that. I hope the music at the ceremony takes that into account as well (that's if there is aceremony at this rate). And no I don't mean rap! H
From: kjw414 <kjw414@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 0:02
Subject: Re: Funds Row
I'm puzzled that some members of the R3 Society contemplate withdrawing contributions for Richard's tomb if they can't dictate its design. Richard doesn't belong to us. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" design; preferences are a matter of varying artistic sensibilities. Surely the important thing is to insure a dignified memorial, regardless of whether or not it's any one person's preferred design. I too like the chapel Leicester is planning, as well as the fact that they're not just sticking him in some open corner. They've managed to carve out a special place of honor at the heart of the cathedral. How cool is that!

I rather like the idea of a modern tomb design. (I even like the elegant simplicity of Leicester's design.) Of course, Richard was a medieval king. But the 15th century left him to the Franciscans for a private burial, and the 16th century tore down the church from over his head and abandoned his grave to the elements. It's the 21st century that went looking for him and intends to honor him in a manner befitting a king of England. It seems appropriate for his memorial to include elements of this century as well as of his own. Rest in peace, Your Grace; the 21st century salutes you! (And wouldn't it be fascinating to know what he'd have thought could he have known that people in the 21st century would get all wrapped around the axle trying to decide how best to honor him?)

Kay Wade

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I had hoped. This is truly sad.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 7:37 PM, "friedaofalsace@..." <friedaofalsace@...> wrote:

I was trying to comment on Sandra Machin's heartfelt remarks but this *#^%& new format keeps putting me elsewhere.

The first thing I ever read about R3 as a child (sparking a lifelong, if mostly dormant until recently, interest) included the legend that his grave was destroyed. That struck me as particularly awful, and I was really elated to find out it wasn't true. I envisioned a state funeral, I really did, and never thought for one moment that it would not happen in some form. I didn't expect Westminster, but I did expect a proper, official ceremony with full military honors. And I expected to be a spectator (I'm in the USA by the way). And now....

I'm nowhere as eloquent but I feel the same.

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

Yes, to Pamela and Eileen. I concur. from Judith (or jfmadore, whatever on this dire yahoo format :) )
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:16:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Funds Row
It is sad, pitiful, and perversely amusing. I just want to poor man to be entombed as a king should be. On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "JF Madore" <jfmadore@...> wrote: I fully agree with Mhaire and Eileen. I prefer the Society design - but have no intention of going to battle on the issue. Good grief, there are so many issues being contended - location of re-interment, nature of ceremony, rights of "descendants", scientific squabbles, etc. etc. Will this king's bones ever find a non-car park place to rest? Not by May 2014, I shouldn't think... Any time in 2014?
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To: mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:17:13 PM
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Far from offending I thoroughly agree with everything you say....everything..At the end of the day Richard needs to be laid to rest once again. The whole thing is now descending into farce...I can see folks 50 years from now reading about this situation and thinking well that was a right cock up, Eileen --- In , Mhairi Gibbons <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote: > > I saw this article too and my heart sunk a little when I read it. For the record, I do like the chapel Leicester have planned for Richard but I would like to see the more ornate tomb which was published by the Society to be used. Surely, Leicester Cathedral and the Society can discuss this like adults and come to a compromise? I feel the withdrawal of funds appears to be an immature and knee jerk reaction. I did not contribute but I would want my donation back to give to whoever is to bury the King as it is his interests that concern me, not that of Leicester, York or anyone else. At the end of the day, the remains of a human being are in a cardboard storage box and all this arguing is ensuring they stay there longer than they have to. I just want something to be agreed so that Richard's ordeal is at an end and he can finally rest in piece. Sorry if anything I've said has offended anyone. >

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!

I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen




--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â€" Richard’s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard’s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ‘high places’ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can’t get much more royal than that. And I want the whole blâ€"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that’s what Henry Tudor’s forces were. I don’t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It’s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So that’s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don’t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It’s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul’s hasn’t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It’s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You’ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we’d be a dull lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I’m afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>

Too bad someone cannot get the ear of Prince William.
On Sep 26, 2013, at 6:04 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!

I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â¬" Richardâ¬"s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, itâ¬"s a complete dogâ¬"s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richardâ¬"s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are â¬Ühigh placesâ¬" in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You canâ¬"t get much more royal than that. And I want the whole blâ¬"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ¬"s what Henry Tudorâ¬"s forces were. I donâ¬"t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ¬"s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ¬"s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I donâ¬"t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. Itâ¬"s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paulâ¬"s hasnâ¬"t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ¬"s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ¬"ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ¬"d be a dull lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, Iâ¬"m afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>

It's very sad Pamela...nothing is going to change now...it's too far gone. We'll be lucky if we see Richard laid to rest before 2015.....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Too bad someone cannot get the ear of Prince William.
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 6:04 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
>
> I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â€" Richard’s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard’s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ‘high places’ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can’t get much more royal than that. And I want the whole blâ€"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that’s what Henry Tudor’s forces were. I don’t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It’s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So that’s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don’t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It’s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul’s hasn’t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It’s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You’ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we’d be a dull lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I’m afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To: <mailto:>
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<<mailto:>>" <<mailto:>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

I hate to mention the word petition' again, folks, but there is one asking for Richard to have a State funeral. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45448 I've just signed it. Not much activity at all as yet, but it's open until 5th February next year. It does mention Westminster Abbey, however, which I think is unlikely in the extreme. But, to coin an unfortunate phrase, is there any room for another petition, stating anywhere that is honourable and appropriate'? Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:46 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

It's very sad Pamela...nothing is going to change now...it's too far gone. We'll be lucky if we see Richard laid to rest before 2015.....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Too bad someone cannot get the ear of Prince William.
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 6:04 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
>
> I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â€" Richard’s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard’s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ‘high places’ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can’t get much more royal than that. And I want the whole blâ€"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that’s what Henry Tudor’s forces were. I don’t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It’s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So that’s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don’t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It’s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul’s hasn’t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It’s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You’ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we’d be a dull lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I’m afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To: <mailto:>
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<<mailto:>>" <<mailto:>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

ÿ SandraMachin wrote:
"I hate to mention the word petition' again, folks, but there is one asking for Richard to have a State funeral. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45448 I've just signed it. Not much activity at all as yet, but it's open until 5th February next year. It does mention Westminster Abbey, however, which I think is unlikely in the extreme. But, to coin an unfortunate phrase, is there any room for another petition, stating anywhere that is honourable and appropriate'?"

Doug here:

There's nothing preventing having a State Funeral at Westminster, with a re-interment in Leicester.

Well, except the cost...

Doug

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sandra: You're right there, Doug, but the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45448 petition wants him buried at Westminster Abbey as well. And now I see that someone has started up another petition for him to be buried at York! A last minute entry. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/55196 They're off. And Leicester is coming up on the rails now. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39708 It'll be neck and neck as they cross the finishing line. By which time they'll be second and third, because he'll have had a State funeral at Westminster and then been laid to rest in a splendid tomb in Gloucester Cathedral, which will have come up from behind and beaten them by a short head. Sorry Paul. And sorry everyone who disapproves of likening the whole thing to a horse race. But it is beginning to feel like the Derby.

Doug here:

There's nothing preventing having a State Funeral at Westminster, with a re-interment in Leicester.

Well, except the cost...

Doug

SandraMachin wrote:
"I hate to mention the word petition' again, folks, but there is one asking for Richard to have a State funeral. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45448 I've just signed it. Not much activity at all as yet, but it's open until 5th February next year. It does mention Westminster Abbey, however, which I think is unlikely in the extreme. But, to coin an unfortunate phrase, is there any room for another petition, stating anywhere that is honourable and appropriate'?"

Doug...I cannot remember where I read that...it may be on the Society website....but I have come across this several times. If this is correct and I cannot see why it should not be....then I should think that nothing is going to change on that subject anytime soon.

As to how much of a tourist hot spot the Urn is....when I have visited the Abbey there has always seems to be quite a little crowd gathered there.

But if the contents of the Urn were ever investigated again and found not to be who it is supposed to be I should imagine that would create quite a upheaval....
What to to do with Urn...what to do with the bones....In a strange and awful way it would be quite funny...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EILEEN BATES wrote::
>
>
> //snip//
> "I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
> about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
> Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
> decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
> still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
> know. Just feel completely let down really."
>
> Doug here:
> Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
> re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
> brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
> Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
> responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
> more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
> of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
> So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
> contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
> whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
> based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
> reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
> such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
> negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
> the report.
> Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
> but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
> wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
> that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
> roofing slate and all...
> Doug
> (who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
> albanian...)
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> > have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> > odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> > months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> > squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> > knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> > would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> > rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> > whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> > There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> > matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> > deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> > make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> > King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> > whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> > for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> > what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> > descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> > family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> > bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> > principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> > down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> > the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> > important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> > permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> > clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> > in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> > Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> > too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> > happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> > absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> > family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> > years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> > king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> > king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> > especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> > tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> > whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> > still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> > what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> > even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> > tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> > Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> > Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> > the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> > to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> > possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> > televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> > him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> > planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> > tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> > whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> > him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> > get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> > lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> > The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> > over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> > is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>"
> > <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> > it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> > in-fighting...
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> > want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

It is puzzling that all responsibility has devolved on a university - from the beginning. Does the university represent the State (the Common weal? - I'm not clear about this in 21st century political/national definition) Just a question. It appears to have been a rotten decision in the first place. Which has interminable has led to arguments regarding multiple issues all across an absurd spectrum. Judith
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:04:38 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!

I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â¬" Richardâ¬"s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, itâ¬"s a complete dogâ¬"s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richardâ¬"s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are â¬Ühigh placesâ¬" in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You canâ¬"t get much more royal than that. And I want the whole blâ¬"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ¬"s what Henry Tudorâ¬"s forces were. I donâ¬"t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ¬"s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ¬"s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I donâ¬"t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. Itâ¬"s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paulâ¬"s hasnâ¬"t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ¬"s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ¬"ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ¬"d be a dull lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, Iâ¬"m afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>

I think they should be replaced in the urn and returned to their place as a monument to how our understanding of history alters in the light of new technology and enquiry. There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:53, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Doug...I cannot remember where I read that...it may be on the Society website....but I have come across this several times. If this is correct and I cannot see why it should not be....then I should think that nothing is going to change on that subject anytime soon.

As to how much of a tourist hot spot the Urn is....when I have visited the Abbey there has always seems to be quite a little crowd gathered there.

But if the contents of the Urn were ever investigated again and found not to be who it is supposed to be I should imagine that would create quite a upheaval....
What to to do with Urn...what to do with the bones....In a strange and awful way it would be quite funny...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EILEEN BATES wrote::
>
>
> //snip//
> "I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
> about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
> Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
> decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
> still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
> know. Just feel completely let down really."
>
> Doug here:
> Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
> re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
> brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
> Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
> responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
> more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
> of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
> So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
> contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
> whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
> based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
> reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
> such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
> negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
> the report.
> Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
> but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
> wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
> that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
> roofing slate and all...
> Doug
> (who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
> albanian...)
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> > have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> > odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> > months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> > squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> > knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> > would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> > rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> > whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> > There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> > matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> > deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> > make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> > King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> > whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> > for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> > what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> > descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> > family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> > bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> > principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> > down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> > the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> > important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> > permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> > clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> > in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> > Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> > too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> > happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> > absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> > family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> > years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> > king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> > king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> > especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> > tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> > whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> > still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> > what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> > even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> > tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> > Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> > Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> > the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> > to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> > possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> > televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> > him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> > planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> > tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> > whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> > him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> > get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> > lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> > The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> > over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> > is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>"
> > <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> > it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> > in-fighting...
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> > want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

IMHO the discovery of King Richard's remains, a medieval king, was unprecedented and no one really knew what the correct procedure was...thus they made it up as they went along, Tragically the University has not realised that they are simply not up to it, not worthy of it, and the thought that they should own up to those facts has clearly not dawned on them. Coupled with this...no one , government department, prime minister, Royal family has thought to step in and take over. What a lost opportunity.....it's crazy...absolutely crazy.

Also is it not rubbish to keep saying that any human remains must be re-interred as close to the original burial place as possible. What about the poor soul whose bones lie languishing in a glass case at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre..this is someone's son! Unfortunately some unfeeling character thinks it is perfectly OK. What about the bones of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey. He was originally buried in France. But if course if they want it to happen then they can make it. There must be countless other cases but these spring to mind first. I'm completely underwhelmed by it all really...Who would have dreamed this would happen on that wonderful day when Richard was discovered....

Eileen
--- In , JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
>
> It is puzzling that all responsibility has devolved on a university - from the beginning. Does the university represent the State (the Common weal? - I'm not clear about this in 21st century political/national definition) Just a question. It appears to have been a rotten decision in the first place. Which has interminable has led to arguments regarding multiple issues all across an absurd spectrum. 
>  
> Judith 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:04:38 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>  
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
>
> I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â€" Richard’s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard’s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ‘high places’ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can’t get much more royal than that. And I want
> the whole blâ€"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that’s what Henry Tudor’s forces were. I don’t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It’s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So that’s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don’t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It’s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take
> that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul’s hasn’t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It’s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You’ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we’d be a dull lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I’m afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

I tried to sign the petition, but it's for UK residents only.

Really, to be totally crass about it, cost is not an issue. A state funeral would almost certainly *make* money for the UK, and the more ornate and ceremonial the better--consider how many visitors recent royal occasions attracted. No one seems to have any difficulty accepting that weddings and jubilees benefit the UK economy generally or that a modest degree of royalty "fandom" is OK. Further, people of a historical bent appreciate the value of these traditions that link us to the collective past of our civilization. I and no doubt more than a few other Americans would have considered this the perfect excuse for a trip to England--and some sightseeing. Can't imagine these thoughts haven't occurred to some politicians too. So what gives? Are people afraid of Richard?

Perhaps they are, of what he might mean or of examining him too closely. If you're a "moderate traditionalist" you accept he probably committed most of those famous crimes--so what does it mean then, that an energetic, dedicated ruler who tried to address the worst abuses and anarchy of his realm, be driven to such extremities? Not the Middle Ages most people prefer to think about.

Bad King Richard and Good King Arthur, both betrayed and dying/disappearing in battle, bookend the medieval world for Anglophones, a neat example of mythologizing history into "usable past." One of the things that fascinates me about R3 is why he resonates so much for us moderns, and that's the best I've come up with.

I've been a "lurker" on this Board for a couple of months now, and I must say I love how educational, erudite and sometimes entertaining you are!

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

IMHO the discovery of King Richard's remains, a medieval king, was unprecedented and no one really knew what the correct procedure was...thus they made it up as they went along, Tragically the University has not realised that they are simply not up to it, not worthy of it, and the thought that they should own up to those facts has clearly not dawned on them. Coupled with this...no one , government department, prime minister, Royal family has thought to step in and take over. What a lost opportunity.....it's crazy...absolutely crazy.

Also is it not rubbish to keep saying that any human remains must be re-interred as close to the original burial place as possible. What about the poor soul whose bones lie languishing in a glass case at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre..this is someone's son! Unfortunately some unfeeling character thinks it is perfectly OK. What about the bones of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey. He was originally buried in France. But if course if they want it to happen then they can make it. There must be countless other cases but these spring to mind first. I'm completely underwhelmed by it all really...Who would have dreamed this would happen on that wonderful day when Richard was discovered....

Eileen
--- In , JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
>
> It is puzzling that all responsibility has devolved on a university - from the beginning. Does the university represent the State (the Common weal? - I'm not clear about this in 21st century political/national definition) Just a question. It appears to have been a rotten decision in the first place. Which has interminable has led to arguments regarding multiple issues all across an absurd spectrum.Â
> Â
> JudithÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:04:38 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
> Â
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
>
> I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â€" Richard’s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, it’s a complete dog’s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richard’s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ‘high places’ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You can’t get much more royal than that. And I want
> the whole blâ€"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because that’s what Henry Tudor’s forces were. I don’t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. It’s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So that’s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I don’t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. It’s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take
> that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paul’s hasn’t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. It’s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. You’ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, we’d be a dull lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, I’m afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

This is interesting. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/09/26/like-richard-iii-henry-viis-reputation-is-sullied-by-the-disappearance-of-the-two-princes/ Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 5:58 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

I think they should be replaced in the urn and returned to their place as a monument to how our understanding of history alters in the light of new technology and enquiry. There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered. Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:53, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Doug...I cannot remember where I read that...it may be on the Society website....but I have come across this several times. If this is correct and I cannot see why it should not be....then I should think that nothing is going to change on that subject anytime soon.

As to how much of a tourist hot spot the Urn is....when I have visited the Abbey there has always seems to be quite a little crowd gathered there.

But if the contents of the Urn were ever investigated again and found not to be who it is supposed to be I should imagine that would create quite a upheaval....
What to to do with Urn...what to do with the bones....In a strange and awful way it would be quite funny...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EILEEN BATES wrote::
>
>
> //snip//
> "I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
> about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
> Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
> decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
> still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
> know. Just feel completely let down really."
>
> Doug here:
> Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
> re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
> brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
> Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
> responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
> more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
> of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
> So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
> contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
> whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
> based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
> reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
> such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
> negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
> the report.
> Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
> but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
> wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
> that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
> roofing slate and all...
> Doug
> (who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
> albanian...)
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> > have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> > odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> > months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> > squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> > knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> > would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> > rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> > whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> > There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> > matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> > deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> > make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> > King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> > whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> > for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> > what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> > descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> > family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> > bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> > principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> > down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> > the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> > important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> > permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> > clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> > in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> > Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> > too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> > happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> > absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> > family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> > years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> > king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> > king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> > especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> > tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> > whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> > still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> > what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> > even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> > tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> > Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> > Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> > the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> > to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> > possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> > televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> > him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> > planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> > tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> > whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> > him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> > get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> > lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> > The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> > over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> > is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>"
> > <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> > it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> > in-fighting...
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> > want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Someone should point that out......just how many members lib pave outside the UK, and who might never get to see something like this. That would make heads swivel!!!!
On Sep 27, 2013, at 12:55 AM, "friedaofalsace@..." <friedaofalsace@...> wrote:

I tried to sign the petition, but it's for UK residents only.

Really, to be totally crass about it, cost is not an issue. A state funeral would almost certainly *make* money for the UK, and the more ornate and ceremonial the better--consider how many visitors recent royal occasions attracted. No one seems to have any difficulty accepting that weddings and jubilees benefit the UK economy generally or that a modest degree of royalty "fandom" is OK. Further, people of a historical bent appreciate the value of these traditions that link us to the collective past of our civilization. I and no doubt more than a few other Americans would have considered this the perfect excuse for a trip to England--and some sightseeing. Can't imagine these thoughts haven't occurred to some politicians too. So what gives? Are people afraid of Richard?

Perhaps they are, of what he might mean or of examining him too closely. If you're a "moderate traditionalist" you accept he probably committed most of those famous crimes--so what does it mean then, that an energetic, dedicated ruler who tried to address the worst abuses and anarchy of his realm, be driven to such extremities? Not the Middle Ages most people prefer to think about.

Bad King Richard and Good King Arthur, both betrayed and dying/disappearing in battle, bookend the medieval world for Anglophones, a neat example of mythologizing history into "usable past." One of the things that fascinates me about R3 is why he resonates so much for us moderns, and that's the best I've come up with.

I've been a "lurker" on this Board for a couple of months now, and I must say I love how educational, erudite and sometimes entertaining you are!

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

IMHO the discovery of King Richard's remains, a medieval king, was unprecedented and no one really knew what the correct procedure was...thus they made it up as they went along, Tragically the University has not realised that they are simply not up to it, not worthy of it, and the thought that they should own up to those facts has clearly not dawned on them. Coupled with this...no one , government department, prime minister, Royal family has thought to step in and take over. What a lost opportunity.....it's crazy...absolutely crazy.

Also is it not rubbish to keep saying that any human remains must be re-interred as close to the original burial place as possible. What about the poor soul whose bones lie languishing in a glass case at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre..this is someone's son! Unfortunately some unfeeling character thinks it is perfectly OK. What about the bones of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey. He was originally buried in France. But if course if they want it to happen then they can make it. There must be countless other cases but these spring to mind first. I'm completely underwhelmed by it all really...Who would have dreamed this would happen on that wonderful day when Richard was discovered....

Eileen
--- In , JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
>
> It is puzzling that all responsibility has devolved on a university - from the beginning. Does the university represent the State (the Common weal? - I'm not clear about this in 21st century political/national definition) Just a question. It appears to have been a rotten decision in the first place. Which has interminable has led to arguments regarding multiple issues all across an absurd spectrum.Â
> Â
> JudithÂ
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:04:38 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
> Â
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything Sandra has said so eloquently. When Richard's remains were discovered I had a kind of hazy picture in my mind's eye with a State funeral taking place some time in the nearish future. Its absolutely ludicrous that a university should be given possession of these Royal remains, Its way beyond their remit and as we can clearly see the result is a complete cock-up. The State should have taken responsibility immediately after the remains were carefully examined and the State should have made the decisions as to where these remains were to be re-interred and how. End of. There would have been none off this awful wrangling which at times borders on childish. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
>
> I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop. Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't know. Just feel completely let down really. Eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing ââ¬" Richardââ¬â¢s reburial should have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only months later, itââ¬â¢s a complete dogââ¬â¢s breakfast. To Hell with all the squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one knows Richardââ¬â¢s personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset. There are ââ¬ËShigh placesââ¬â¢ in our establishment that deal with all matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a King of England. You canââ¬â¢t get much more royal than that. And I want
> the whole blââ¬"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatââ¬â¢s what Henry Tudorââ¬â¢s forces were. I donââ¬â¢t care if the royals are descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itââ¬â¢s the principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatââ¬â¢s what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We, the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an important decision in the first place. I donââ¬â¢t care who had a licence, permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what happens to a king. Itââ¬â¢s plain daft. And presumptuous. They have absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500 years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a king. Nothing can take
> that from him. And we in Britain, England especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might still be chosen, that St. Paulââ¬â¢s hasnââ¬â¢t been mentioned, I do NOT know what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out, even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind. Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not, whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itââ¬â¢s him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youââ¬â¢ll never get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weââ¬â¢d be a dull lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on. The tirade came over me, Iââ¬â¢m afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred" over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes, it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

Jonathan wrote:

"Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html <snip>"

Carol responds:

Someone who doesn't mind his or her full name being posted should react against the repeated use of "Old Crookback" in the headline, the article, and even the comments. And one commenter called him a "sad little man," which probably is not as sympathetic as it may sound. I don't care whether the rites are Catholic or C of E as long as the service is appropriate, respectful, and beautiful, but I'm sick to death of the standard insults and lies going unaddressed. "Old Crookback" was a king and soldier of 32 whose scoliosis went unnoticed in his lifetime--to say nothing of his legislation and other accomplishments. I'd almost rather have Joe Ann Ricca (the "doe-eyed" woman from Las Vegas), whose R III forum I used to belong to and who cannot endure a word of criticism against Richard.

Carol

The comments are worth reading. Quite heated. I've just added one  not heated, just having a little go at the main combatants. It's something I've posted here before, so nothing exciting. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 7:17 PM To: Subject: RE: RE: Funds Row

Jonathan wrote:

"Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html <snip>"
Carol responds:

Someone who doesn't mind his or her full name being posted should react against the repeated use of "Old Crookback" in the headline, the article, and even the comments. And one commenter called him a "sad little man," which probably is not as sympathetic as it may sound. I don't care whether the rites are Catholic or C of E as long as the service is appropriate, respectful, and beautiful, but I'm sick to death of the standard insults and lies going unaddressed. "Old Crookback" was a king and soldier of 32 whose scoliosis went unnoticed in his lifetime--to say nothing of his legislation and other accomplishments. I'd almost rather have Joe Ann Ricca (the "doe-eyed" woman from Las Vegas), whose R III forum I used to belong to and who cannot endure a word of criticism against Richard.

Carol

There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

I am afraid, Sandra, that if you take the trouble to look, this sort of stuff is all over the Internet and indeed, to the 'ordinary' reader with little more than an passing interest in history, it does reinforce the idea, unfortunately started by the way that the King in the Car Park footage was edited, that any supporter of Richard is an '...eccentric or rabid loony.'
I am totally saddened by the whole thing.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

It makes me want to cry over my fast-emptying bottle of morning Chablis. =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:47 AM To: Subject: Re: More unwelcome publicity

I am afraid, Sandra, that if you take the trouble to look, this sort of stuff is all over the Internet and indeed, to the 'ordinary' reader with little more than an passing interest in history, it does reinforce the idea, unfortunately started by the way that the King in the Car Park footage was edited, that any supporter of Richard is an '...eccentric or rabid loony.'
I am totally saddened by the whole thing.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard’s supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I’m shocked by threats to a man’s employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Threatening a man's livelihood is a little different. Sandra =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:09 AM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT.
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

> The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard,
> Leicester and York for nearly a month


And York hasn't been doing the same thing? Oh, for God's sake, but this is now tiresome.

There's some vile stuff across social networking sites and no "side" in this can claim the moral high ground. In fact, too many are scrambling to the depths with all the alacrity they can achieve.

And whatever's going on, it's not for the good of Richard, historical research or natural justice. As with any fandom turned rabid, it's about ego and ownership.

Jonathan


Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Funds Row
Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 10:09:38 AM

 

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.  

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable.   Sandra =^..^=  

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

ÿ Boaring, indeed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Evans To: Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: RE: RE: Funds Row

> The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard,
> Leicester and York for nearly a month


And York hasn't been doing the same thing? Oh, for God's sake, but this is now tiresome.

There's some vile stuff across social networking sites and no "side" in this can claim the moral high ground. In fact, too many are scrambling to the depths with all the alacrity they can achieve.

And whatever's going on, it's not for the good of Richard, historical research or natural justice. As with any fandom turned rabid, it's about ego and ownership.

Jonathan


Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Funds Row
Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 10:09:38 AM

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard&apos;s favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance&apos;s lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Reading the article was shocking. It really is sad. We seem to be like salmon swimming upstream against and enormous tide of negativity.
On Sep 28, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

I am afraid, Sandra, that if you take the trouble to look, this sort of stuff is all over the Internet and indeed, to the 'ordinary' reader with little more than an passing interest in history, it does reinforce the idea, unfortunately started by the way that the King in the Car Park footage was edited, that any supporter of Richard is an '...eccentric or rabid loony.'
I am totally saddened by the whole thing.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

If the man writing this blog were working for many corporations on this side of the Pond, he'd have been fired as his personal attacks on the woman reflects badly on the institution, regardless he's doing it on his time off.

I don't know how U.S. universities would have reacted to his attacking her, but since he seems to reflect Leicester's attitudes, they may soon promote him and give him a raise.

His deleting the posts won't make the libel go away. If she wants to, she can pursue damages. At this point, she's trying to protect herself.

I'm standing amazed at the rabid emotional reaction the man has to a legal challenge. I wonder if he's terrified Leicester will lose Richard's bones, or if....

Well, let me put it this way. When female fans of certain male celebrities have this sort of rabid reaction to the lovely companions of said celebrities, other female fans say, "You're just jellus."

So. I'm left wondering if the man might not be deeply jealous of this woman's DNA, if he's lashing out because he can't lay claim to the same ancestry. He's her great uncle, isn't he? Not Leicester's.

It's astonishing that he's stooped to publicly attack her, instead of taking the time to frame an intelligent debate over the issue at hand. But then again, a few of the city of Leicester's own public officials have insulted the Alliance in their past statements as well, and so it goes.

Fear and jealousy?...yeah, I'm thinking mebbe so.

~Weds



On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 3:09 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
 

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.  

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable.   Sandra =^..^=  

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

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

Have you actually read the blog in question (it's not the Leicester Blog as it's just the blog of an individual who lives there and has never claimed to be anything more than his personal opinion) or are you just going by what others have told you? I ask because I have read it and I don't see any reasonable basis for such criticisms. As far as I can see the blog never claimed that York wasn't a Favorite city of Richard's (in fact, it does say that York IS an important city in terms of Richard's history and life) or that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium or that Richard loved Leicester. Quite the contrary for that last one, the blog goes out of its way to note that the case for burying Richard there rests on the law and has nothing to do with his supposed wishes". Likewise, Leicester University hasn't distanced itself from the blog, but merely stated that it is not its role to get involved. I can see, however, how someone with a jaundiced, biased eye could take what was actually posted and twist it into the accusations you list, if mostly by greatly exaggerating the nature of the posts there and assuming the most negative interpretation of the author's intentions. However, considering what's at stake and how badly many people have already reacted wouldn't it be best to base our attitudes and conclusions on a solid factual basis rather than just leaping to whatever conclusion happens to fit our personal desires? I think it's especially dangerous to propagate potentially false information on this list and thus run the risk of promoting what is in the end mere slander serving the interests of a particular clique. Alan From: colyngbourne Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:09 AM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

Yes, I have read the blog. The sub-title of the blog includes the phrase " Richard loved Leicester".

Thank you for implying to list-readers here that I have a jaundiced and biased eye, that I twist and greatly exaggerate, that I leap to conclusions to fit my personal desires.

The posts concerned on the LeicesterLovesRichard blog were libellous, and have been taken down.

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

Have you actually read the blog in question (it's not the Leicester Blog as it's just the blog of an individual who lives there and has never claimed to be anything more than his personal opinion) or are you just going by what others have told you? I ask because I have read it and I don't see any reasonable basis for such criticisms. As far as I can see the blog never claimed that York wasn't a Favorite city of Richard's (in fact, it does say that York IS an important city in terms of Richard's history and life) or that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium or that Richard loved Leicester. Quite the contrary for that last one, the blog goes out of its way to note that the case for burying Richard there rests on the law and has nothing to do with his supposed wishes". Likewise, Leicester University hasn't distanced itself from the blog, but merely stated that it is not its role to get involved. I can see, however, how someone with a jaundiced, biased eye could take what was actually posted and twist it into the accusations you list, if mostly by greatly exaggerating the nature of the posts there and assuming the most negative interpretation of the author's intentions. However, considering what's at stake and how badly many people have already reacted wouldn't it be best to base our attitudes and conclusions on a solid factual basis rather than just leaping to whatever conclusion happens to fit our personal desires? I think it's especially dangerous to propagate potentially false information on this list and thus run the risk of promoting what is in the end mere slander serving the interests of a particular clique. Alan From: colyngbourne Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:09 AM To: Subject: RE: Funds Row

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think it was me who mentioned Richard would develop a "fandom." Fan is short for fanatic, so there you go.

Watching the mess swirling around Richard's reburial reminds me a bit of the frantic energy over the centenary year of Oscar Wilde's death in 2000. Scholars, professors, directors, actors, writings, fans...many were guilty of behaving as if they owned him, and watching the dance revealed far more about the dancers than it ever could about Oscar.

Some carefully included Wilde's surviving family in the festivities taking place throughout the year. Others ignored the family completely -- even to the point that one group invaded his wife's gravesite in Genoa on the anniversary of her death, which had the effect of denying the family any privacy in honoring her themselves that day.

Incidentally, Wilde was honored in 1995 with the installation of a small stained glass window in Poet's Corner in Westminster. (The complete window forms a memorial to Edward Horton Hubbard (1937-89), architectural historian.) Among the attendees at the unveiling were Seamus Heaney, Sir John Gielgud, Dame Judi Dench, and Michael Denison. Flowers were laid by the widow of Wilde's youngest son, Vyvyan.

It took less than 100 years for The Establishment to "forgive" Wilde his "sins." I don't see The Establishment forgiving Richard anytime soon for the sins the Tudors said he committed. I also cant' see them honoring their last warrior king with anything, at any time, in Westminster Abbey.

It makes absolutely no sense to me. 

The fandom thing, however, does make sense to me. Since we "fans" join the ranks of the likes of Francis Lovell, Brackenbury and Rob Percy, I've no objection. Someone may soon even pen their own bit of doggerel about us and the King. But if they call him a crookback in their wretched verse, they should know by now that we're honor-bound to go all medieval on them.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:18 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
 

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy.   Sandra =^..^=   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row    

Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us.  There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted.  Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT.   From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
  The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog. 

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable.   Sandra =^..^=  

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

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

Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree.

There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

George Eliot was also of course denied burial in the Abbey because she'd 'lived in sin', another example of the Establishment being out of touch and perhaps some of them always will be - it goes with the job. Cutting through all this though shouldn't we be glad that not only does someone want him, they are vying over having him and honouring him, for whatever reason. I'm sure some 'courtier' would have had him tucked away without fuss over by the hedge at Frogmore. Now wherever or whenever it happens it's got to be grand. Where are the banners flying for HVII or his son? We should be rejoicing whatever the outcome. If he has fans then he's a mile ahead of most of our other rulers. As long as we don't start dressing in Richard III suits! From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 9:00
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
I think it was me who mentioned Richard would develop a "fandom." Fan is short for fanatic, so there you go. Watching the mess swirling around Richard's reburial reminds me a bit of the frantic energy over the centenary year of Oscar Wilde's death in 2000. Scholars, professors, directors, actors, writings, fans...many were guilty of behaving as if they owned him, and watching the dance revealed far more about the dancers than it ever could about Oscar. Some carefully included Wilde's surviving family in the festivities taking place throughout the year. Others ignored the family completely -- even to the point that one group invaded his wife's gravesite in Genoa on the anniversary of her death, which had the effect of denying the family any privacy in honoring her themselves that day. Incidentally, Wilde was honored in 1995 with the installation of a small stained glass window in Poet's Corner in Westminster. (The complete window forms a memorial to Edward Horton Hubbard (1937-89), architectural historian.) Among the attendees at the unveiling were Seamus Heaney, Sir John Gielgud, Dame Judi Dench, and Michael Denison. Flowers were laid by the widow of Wilde's youngest son, Vyvyan. It took less than 100 years for The Establishment to "forgive" Wilde his "sins." I don't see The Establishment forgiving Richard anytime soon for the sins the Tudors said he committed. I also cant' see them honoring their last warrior king with anything, at any time, in Westminster Abbey. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
The fandom thing, however, does make sense to me. Since we "fans" join the ranks of the likes of Francis Lovell, Brackenbury and Rob Percy, I've no objection. Someone may soon even pen their own bit of doggerel about us and the King. But if they call him a crookback in their wretched verse, they should know by now that we're honor-bound to go all medieval on them.
~Weds


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:18 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog. ---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote: If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters. Paul On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^= --
Richard Liveth Yet! -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Hello, colyngbourne, Yorks Branch sec Pauline would like to put your post re those who think Richard would have wanted to be buried in York in the branch update this week, is that ok with you.Best WishesChristine
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 9:05
Subject: RE: Funds Row
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.) ---In , <sandramachin@...> wrote: Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog. ---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote: If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters. Paul On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^= --
Richard Liveth Yet!

That's fine with me. Thanks, Christine.

---In , <> wrote:

Hello, colyngbourne, Yorks Branch sec Pauline would like to put your post re those who think Richard would have wanted to be buried in York in the branch update this week, is that ok with you.Best WishesChristine
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 9:05
Subject: RE: Funds Row
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.) ---In , <sandramachin@...> wrote: Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog. ---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote: If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters. Paul On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^= --
Richard Liveth Yet!

I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>


I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.
On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>


I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>


I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I know what you mean by contentious issue', Pamela, but isn't it awful that we have to categorise Richard like this? Not you personally, all of us. Why is he spoken of as contentious? It really should be a plain and simple matter of him being a King of England. Full stop. He should have all the pomp and glory associated with Kings of England. All this brouhaha is unbelievable. Why is there any doubt? It's beyond me. I really do hope there is behind-the-scenes contact with the present royal family. If there isn't, there damned well should be. Can they really be standing by, allowing a disparate group of commoners like the Plantagenet Alliance (I do NOT describe them thus out of rudeness or sarcasm, merely as a fact) to win this and that right over his fate? Are the Windsors twiddling the royal thumbs at Buck House while the cities of Leicester and York virtually don armour and prepare for battle? Somewhere around Chesterfield should be a suitable ground, halfway between the two. No, I did not mention Nero. I've said it before, I know, but the present Royal family, Windsor, Hanover, Stuart, Tudor or whatever, is truly descended from the Plantagenets as well. Richard is not only one of their ancestors, but one of their predecessors on the throne! He was crowned and anointed at Westminster, just as was the present Queen, and (I think) all the intervening monarchs as well. End of argument. I'm still shouting for a State funeral. If anything less is allowed, and Richard is treated shabbily, we might as well become a republic. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 1:51 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society. From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela! From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey. But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey. The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Pamela, you comment that these opinions are "assumptions" - well, maybe the entirety of history is made up of assumptions. The people named above/below are historians who specifically study this man - like the folk here on this forum - and some stake their academic and professional opinion on their "assumptions" (in fact, thoroughly and long-researched 'likelihoods'). Does this mean that no-one can ever make a decision on the most likely suitable place for Richard, because they are not inside his thoughts and feelings? Clearly a majority of those who professionally assess Richard and his life as part of their work - including many senior Society names - place a definite weight on York Minster.

Once king, Richard was ruling from the south, yes - though a significant part of the two years + that he reigned was not actually spent in the south at all (from March to November 1484 Richard was away from London for all but for a few days in the August). And the very establishment of his foundation at York from 1483 onwards - when he was King, not Lord of the North - and the scale and expense of it exceeding anything that had ever been created before by any king - suggests his religious focus was not on London at all. His brother's focus was on Windsor, but Richard had little to do with that location.

I disagree that it is a sterile debate - should the JR in two months time return a rejection of the MoJ licence, then "Richard's inferable wishes" will be part of the consultation that hasn't happened so far: The process will require some academic understanding of what Richard was intending or expecting for his own mausoleum. I do recommend the article by David Johnson in the Bulletin. Obviously Anne is interred in Westminster Abbey, a location which is no longer available for interments, even should it be decided upon. Richard was building his unprecedented chantry for 100 priests at York when Anne died - it is not inconceivable that, like other royal remains he dealt with, he would have removed her to York, close to her family's seat of power, once Tudor was out of the way and the building works were completed.




---In , <> wrote:

Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>


I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I agree with you that a lot of history is made up of assumptions. What I quarrel with is the assumption made by many that they KNOW. Even you in your earlier post said '...Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.' I am sure if one searched long enough one would find other historians, professional and amateurs who are equally agreed on a different point of view and regard their assumptions as equally 'undeniable'.
You mention Richard's foundation at York Minster. It was large and expensive, but nothing in the material which survives today says he intended it as a personal mausoleum. His will is lost. We cannot know - we can infer and interpret, but we cannot keep saying 'we know' or that 'this is what he wanted'.
I have always had a soft spot for York. I have visited it many times, it is a lovely place, with a lovely Minster. But I am tired of the constant certainty expressed by some that it is the only place Richard ever considered for his and his family's burials.
With regard to the Bulletin - I have not yet received mine and I look forward to reading the article - is this by the same person whose account of the 'behind the scenes' stuff was published in the Yorkshire Post?

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>

Pamela, you comment that these opinions are "assumptions" - well, maybe the entirety of history is made up of assumptions. The people named above/below are historians who specifically study this man - like the folk here on this forum - and some stake their academic and professional opinion on their "assumptions" (in fact, thoroughly and long-researched 'likelihoods'). Does this mean that no-one can ever make a decision on the most likely suitable place for Richard, because they are not inside his thoughts and feelings? Clearly a majority of those who professionally assess Richard and his life as part of their work - including many senior Society names - place a definite weight on York Minster. Once king, Richard was ruling from the south, yes - though a significant part of the two years + that he reigned was not actually spent in the south at all (from March to November 1484 Richard was away from London for all but for a few days in the August). And the very establishment of his foundation at York from 1483 onwards - when he was King, not Lord of the North - and the scale and expense of it exceeding anything that had ever been created before by any king - suggests his religious focus was not on London at all. His brother's focus was on Windsor, but Richard had little to do with that location. I disagree that it is a sterile debate - should the JR in two months time return a rejection of the MoJ licence, then "Richard's inferable wishes" will be part of the consultation that hasn't happened so far: The process will require some academic understanding of what Richard was intending or expecting for his own mausoleum. I do recommend the article by David Johnson in the Bulletin. Obviously Anne is interred in Westminster Abbey, a location which is no longer available for interments, even should it be decided upon. Richard was building his unprecedented chantry for 100 priests at York when Anne died - it is not inconceivable that, like other royal remains he dealt with, he would have removed her to York, close to her family's seat of power, once Tudor was out of the way and the building works were completed.




---In , <> wrote:

Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>


I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!
On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:


Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.

I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

As we can never know what Richard thought - perhaps he hadn't even made up his mind - we could look at who loved him. The sheer courage of the person/s who wrote those minutes of York Council in the days following Bosworth can never be underestimated. We know without doubt that he was loved in York. To be buried where you were loved can never go amiss - which is why I signed the York petition. But as long as he is fitfully honoured I can live with it. He was King of England, wherever is chosen he will still be at home; unlike many later 'warriors' who never came home. This wrangling (having received the latest email from the Society) really doesn't help anyone, except those who want to make the whole thing look like a farce. (and I don't mean anyone here). I ask again, can we not just be glad he's been found and wasn't 'scattered' in a river? H. From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 14:54
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row
I agree with you that a lot of history is made up of assumptions. What I quarrel with is the assumption made by many that they KNOW. Even you in your earlier post said '...Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.' I am sure if one searched long enough one would find other historians, professional and amateurs who are equally agreed on a different point of view and regard their assumptions as equally 'undeniable'.
You mention Richard's foundation at York Minster. It was large and expensive, but nothing in the material which survives today says he intended it as a personal mausoleum. His will is lost. We cannot know - we can infer and interpret, but we cannot keep saying 'we know' or that 'this is what he wanted'.
I have always had a soft spot for York. I have visited it many times, it is a lovely place, with a lovely Minster. But I am tired of the constant certainty expressed by some that it is the only place Richard ever considered for his and his family's burials.
With regard to the Bulletin - I have not yet received mine and I look forward to reading the article - is this by the same person whose account of the 'behind the scenes' stuff was published in the Yorkshire Post?

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>

Pamela, you comment that these opinions are "assumptions" - well, maybe the entirety of history is made up of assumptions. The people named above/below are historians who specifically study this man - like the folk here on this forum - and some stake their academic and professional opinion on their "assumptions" (in fact, thoroughly and long-researched 'likelihoods'). Does this mean that no-one can ever make a decision on the most likely suitable place for Richard, because they are not inside his thoughts and feelings? Clearly a majority of those who professionally assess Richard and his life as part of their work - including many senior Society names - place a definite weight on York Minster. Once king, Richard was ruling from the south, yes - though a significant part of the two years + that he reigned was not actually spent in the south at all (from March to November 1484 Richard was away from London for all but for a few days in the August). And the very establishment of his foundation at York from 1483 onwards - when he was King, not Lord of the North - and the scale and expense of it exceeding anything that had ever been created before by any king - suggests his religious focus was not on London at all. His brother's focus was on Windsor, but Richard had little to do with that location. I disagree that it is a sterile debate - should the JR in two months time return a rejection of the MoJ licence, then "Richard's inferable wishes" will be part of the consultation that hasn't happened so far: The process will require some academic understanding of what Richard was intending or expecting for his own mausoleum. I do recommend the article by David Johnson in the Bulletin. Obviously Anne is interred in Westminster Abbey, a location which is no longer available for interments, even should it be decided upon. Richard was building his unprecedented chantry for 100 priests at York when Anne died - it is not inconceivable that, like other royal remains he dealt with, he would have removed her to York, close to her family's seat of power, once Tudor was out of the way and the building works were completed.
---In , <> wrote:Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.
On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.
Another Pamela!
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such! On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.
But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.
The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree. There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable. I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.) ---In , <sandramachin@...> wrote: Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog. ---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote: If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters. Paul On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^= --
Richard Liveth Yet!

AMEN!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row

As we can never know what Richard thought - perhaps he hadn't even made up his mind - we could look at who loved him. The sheer courage of the person/s who wrote those minutes of York Council in the days following Bosworth can never be underestimated. We know without doubt that he was loved in York. To be buried where you were loved can never go amiss - which is why I signed the York petition. But as long as he is fitfully honoured I can live with it. He was King of England, wherever is chosen he will still be at home; unlike many later 'warriors' who never came home. This wrangling (having received the latest email from the Society) really doesn't help anyone, except those who want to make the whole thing look like a farce. (and I don't mean anyone here). I ask again, can we not just be glad he's been found and wasn't 'scattered' in a river? H.

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 14:54
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row

I agree with you that a lot of history is made up of assumptions. What I quarrel with is the assumption made by many that they KNOW. Even you in your earlier post said '...Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable.' I am sure if one searched long enough one would find other historians, professional and amateurs who are equally agreed on a different point of view and regard their assumptions as equally 'undeniable'.

You mention Richard's foundation at York Minster. It was large and expensive, but nothing in the material which survives today says he intended it as a personal mausoleum. His will is lost. We cannot know - we can infer and interpret, but we cannot keep saying 'we know' or that 'this is what he wanted'.

I have always had a soft spot for York. I have visited it many times, it is a lovely place, with a lovely Minster. But I am tired of the constant certainty expressed by some that it is the only place Richard ever considered for his and his family's burials.

With regard to the Bulletin - I have not yet received mine and I look forward to reading the article - is this by the same person whose account of the 'behind the scenes' stuff was published in the Yorkshire Post?

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>

Pamela, you comment that these opinions are "assumptions" - well, maybe the entirety of history is made up of assumptions. The people named above/below are historians who specifically study this man - like the folk here on this forum - and some stake their academic and professional opinion on their "assumptions" (in fact, thoroughly and long-researched 'likelihoods'). Does this mean that no-one can ever make a decision on the most likely suitable place for Richard, because they are not inside his thoughts and feelings? Clearly a majority of those who professionally assess Richard and his life as part of their work - including many senior Society names - place a definite weight on York Minster.

Once king, Richard was ruling from the south, yes - though a significant part of the two years + that he reigned was not actually spent in the south at all (from March to November 1484 Richard was away from London for all but for a few days in the August). And the very establishment of his foundation at York from 1483 onwards - when he was King, not Lord of the North - and the scale and expense of it exceeding anything that had ever been created before by any king - suggests his religious focus was not on London at all. His brother's focus was on Windsor, but Richard had little to do with that location.

I disagree that it is a sterile debate - should the JR in two months time return a rejection of the MoJ licence, then "Richard's inferable wishes" will be part of the consultation that hasn't happened so far: The process will require some academic understanding of what Richard was intending or expecting for his own mausoleum. I do recommend the article by David Johnson in the Bulletin. Obviously Anne is interred in Westminster Abbey, a location which is no longer available for interments, even should it be decided upon. Richard was building his unprecedented chantry for 100 priests at York when Anne died - it is not inconceivable that, like other royal remains he dealt with, he would have removed her to York, close to her family's seat of power, once Tudor was out of the way and the building works were completed.

---In , <> wrote:

Discovering the 'lost' remains of a former king is (I think) without precedent. The Royals, unlike politicians, tend not to become embroiled (at last publicly) in contentious issues. We have no way of knowing what is going on behind the scenes. The Duke of Gloucester, the Society's Patron, has some sort of liaison role with the Society.

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

Thank you for the clarification. So, does anyone have a clue why the Royal family have completely turned their back on this issue? I would think it gracious and respectful of them to accord some dignity to a fallen king. Is the War of the Roses such a contentious issue that they cannot tackle this "hot potato"? After the death of Princess Diana they dithered, and finally came around. Maybe this one has such impassioned people in support of, or completely against that they have just recused themselves completely. But someone. Did point out that this was contrary to standard procedure.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

No, Pamela., she was buried in Westminster Abbey but unfortunately there is such a jumble of coffins etc underneath, the whereabouts of her remains is at present unknown. The Society put a plaque in the Abbey recording her burial, but it is obviously not 'over' her actural remains.

Another Pamela!

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>

I thought she was buried elsewhere, and moved after the building was bombed in WW II. Certainly, I could be wrong. But point taken, he must of wanted to be with his wife, wherever it was. I do not understand why the Royal family is going back to type, and being dim witted about this. The man was a king, bury him as such!

On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:50 AM, "Pamela Furmidge" <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Colyngbourne - None of these people know what Richard intended, like the rest of us, they make assumptions. My own assumption is that had he remained until death Lord of the North, then he would probably have been buried somewhere in the North. However, he did not. He became king and his focus shifted south. Had he lived and died as king after a reasonably long reign and his will had survived, it is probable he would have been buried either with the new York foundation of St George's Windsor, or Westminster Abbey.

But this is a sterile debate because no one alive today knows what Richard intended with regard to his own burial. The only clue is that his wife was buried in Westminster Abbey.

The thing which saddens me is the often wounding things said to people on both sides who express an opinion or who disagree with an opinion expressed.

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>

Pamela - there is a lot of inaccurate information about, I agree.

There is also a lot of history about. If you read this month's Ricardian Bulletin, there is a very strong article by David Johnson of the Looking for Richard project, with numerous quotes from academic historians, including some senior names from the Society, suggesting that Richard's most likely wish was to be buried in York. John Ashdown-Hill has stated that the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried is Leicester. Michael Hicks said the same. Tony Pollard, Barrie Dobson, Mark Ormrod, David Palliser, Lynda Pidgeon, Colin Richmond, Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs - even writers like Sharon Penman, Alison Weir, even Desmond Seward all agree - Richard would have been intending a York burial. Historians, both "pro" and "anti" Richard, both professional and amateurs, are agreed on this thing as undeniable. I don't see the point of being a Ricardian if it's not possible to take a guess at - or it's deemed not worth giving two hoots to consider - where he probably wished to be buried, now that his remains have miraculously been found. That there is a perceived miscarriage of justice taking place right in the middle of this issue doesn't help but cannot be ignored. "Wrangling" is totally justified and what you get when city councils and universities privatise the decision-making over a king's remains, ignoring the context of the man's life and his connections *whilst he was alive*. Did he probably wish to be buried in St Martin's Church, Leicester? No. And that should be the starting point of discussion, *not* the context in which he was buried by Tudor. (Just reading last night in JAH's Secret Queen, that John Talbot's body was buried in France initially, and then respectfully brought home for burial in his family place, 40 years later - and of course there are many other examples of this in medieval times and Richard's own times.)

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

Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Pamela Furmidge

Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM

To:

Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT.

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>

The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters. Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:

There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable.

Sandra

=^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry to say, but calling us "fans" belittles us and makes us sound like screaming teenagers. It is good way of turning genuine historical inquiry into the burblings of idiots who can therefore be ignored however worthy our researches.
It is very reprehensible.
If you don't like the message, belittle the messenger.
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2013, 9:00
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

I think it was me who mentioned Richard would develop a "fandom." Fan is short for fanatic, so there you go.

Watching the mess swirling around Richard's reburial reminds me a bit of the frantic energy over the centenary year of Oscar Wilde's death in 2000. Scholars, professors, directors, actors, writings, fans...many were guilty of behaving as if they owned him, and watching the dance revealed far more about the dancers than it ever could about Oscar.

Some carefully included Wilde's surviving family in the festivities taking place throughout the year. Others ignored the family completely -- even to the point that one group invaded his wife's gravesite in Genoa on the anniversary of her death, which had the effect of denying the family any privacy in honoring her themselves that day.

Incidentally, Wilde was honored in 1995 with the installation of a small stained glass window in Poet's Corner in Westminster. (The complete window forms a memorial to Edward Horton Hubbard (1937-89), architectural historian.) Among the attendees at the unveiling were Seamus Heaney, Sir John Gielgud, Dame Judi Dench, and Michael Denison. Flowers were laid by the widow of Wilde's youngest son, Vyvyan.

It took less than 100 years for The Establishment to "forgive" Wilde his "sins." I don't see The Establishment forgiving Richard anytime soon for the sins the Tudors said he committed. I also cant' see them honoring their last warrior king with anything, at any time, in Westminster Abbey.

It makes absolutely no sense to me.

The fandom thing, however, does make sense to me. Since we "fans" join the ranks of the likes of Francis Lovell, Brackenbury and Rob Percy, I've no objection. Someone may soon even pen their own bit of doggerel about us and the King. But if they call him a crookback in their wretched verse, they should know by now that we're honor-bound to go all medieval on them.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:18 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Whoever mentioned fandom' recently was clearly psychic, because it seems we are no longer Richard's supporters, but his fans. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/richard-iiis-tomb-design-stirs-discontent-among-his-fans-8C11284515 What a pity we can't buy tickets to his next performance. I've always wanted to watch and hear him deliver his magnificent Titulus Regius' soliloquy. Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 12:01 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Colyngbourne - it doesn't matter which 'side' gets involved in this sort of thing, it reflects badly on all of us. There is still a lot of inaccurate information published about Richard, especially about his 'wishes' and how people 'know' what he would have wanted. Anyone expressing reservations about this sort of thing are howled down and some of the responses are quite OTT. From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
The Leicester blog has been promoting inaccurate, ahistorical information about Richard, Leicester and York for nearly a month, containing plenty of statements such as Richard's favourite cities were Nottingham and Durham but definitely not York, that Richard spent most of his childhood in Belgium, that Richard "loved" Leicester. The post the blogger made about an individual who is part of the JR legal challenge to the Uni of Leicester, was in fact libellous and has been noted by the Plantagenet Alliance's lawyers. This post and another, concerning the pro-York supporter, have now been deleted from this blog, possibly because, as the blogger is the Senior Web Admin for Leicester Uni, his posts were bringing the University into disrepute. They and De Montfort University have already distanced themselves from this blog.

---In , <paul.bale@...> wrote:

If he had one Richard would be turning in his grave with outrage, and yet another disappointment from some he thought supporters.
Paul

On 28/09/2013 08:40, SandraMachin wrote:
There really is no end to the unwelcome stories that make Richard's supporters seem a bunch of eccentric or rabid loonies. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-campaigner-gets-abuse-threatening/story-19852143-detail/story.html#axzz2g4tDTV5G But it proves one thing, we need to be very careful indeed about the e-remarks we make about those we do not like/do not agree with. Personalising it with vicious comments is not the path to take. Shout at organisations, but not about individuals. Certainly I shall be more circumspect with names in future. We can rant about someone as rudely as we want in private, but not where the rest of the world can read it as well. And certainly not resort to the tactics of this anonymous York-supporting woman. I'm shocked by threats to a man's employment, simply because he thinks Richard should be buried in Leicester! Whoever did it should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. Named in this instance, and shamed. I have a feeling Richard himself would be appalled by such disgraceful actions being carried out in his name. He was honourable. Sandra =^..^=

--
Richard Liveth Yet!




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

Of absolutely no import...I think that tomb design is just damn ugly.

On another vein, here's some recipes from the 15th century or round about.

http://www.godecookery.com/goderec/goderec.htm

Regards,

T

---In , <> wrote:

Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote:It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote:It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote:It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
  Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately.  He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=

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

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation.A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester.Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security.It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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

It's not the making money that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first to admit that the only thing I bought at the National Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.

What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him up" on the other Leicester hand.

I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they never do.

~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
 

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world! 
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

  So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
  Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
  Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately.  He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^=


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

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

A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one.
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation.A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester.Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security.It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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

Wednesday, if you were able to visit the display in Leicester Cathedral, (they have display boards up in a small side chapel - I don't mean the City of Leicester exhibition) you would see that there is a lot of information of Richard's approach to helping the poor as evidenced by his first Parliament. It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude.
At the same time, it is useful to remember that the traditional view of Christian teaching is redemption from the sins committed during one's lifetime and I think that is probably what the original wording was trying to make reference to. After all, none of us assumes Richard was a saint, entirely without sin during his lifetime, do we?
The Cathedral, to give them their due, have made a great effort within the new design to provide Richard with an entire space to himself, in a central point in the Cathedral, a place of high honour, where his will be the single focus of attention for visitors. He will have a tomb (leaving aside the current design which may be changed after the consultation period).
Of course, the outcome of the legal process cannot be known at this stage, but I think we should give some credit to the Cathedral authorities who have responded to the deluge of criticism of the original proposal (presumably led by the then Acting Dean) for a ledger stone by completely changing their approach. From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:


It's not the making money that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first to admit that the only thing I bought at the National Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.

What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him up" on the other Leicester hand.

I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they never do.

~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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




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

I agree with you, Pamela. The Cathedral staff must have had a hard time dealing with the attention & criticism.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 3 Oct 2013, at 08:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Wednesday, if you were able to visit the display in Leicester Cathedral, (they have display boards up in a small side chapel - I don't mean the City of Leicester exhibition) you would see that there is a lot of information of Richard's approach to helping the poor as evidenced by his first Parliament. It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude.
At the same time, it is useful to remember that the traditional view of Christian teaching is redemption from the sins committed during one's lifetime and I think that is probably what the original wording was trying to make reference to. After all, none of us assumes Richard was a saint, entirely without sin during his lifetime, do we?
The Cathedral, to give them their due, have made a great effort within the new design to provide Richard with an entire space to himself, in a central point in the Cathedral, a place of high honour, where his will be the single focus of attention for visitors. He will have a tomb (leaving aside the current design which may be changed after the consultation period).
Of course, the outcome of the legal process cannot be known at this stage, but I think we should give some credit to the Cathedral authorities who have responded to the deluge of criticism of the original proposal (presumably led by the then Acting Dean) for a ledger stone by completely changing their approach. From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:


It's not the making money that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first to admit that the only thing I bought at the National Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.

What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him up" on the other Leicester hand.

I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they never do.

~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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




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

I agree too but I have to say I wonder exactly who was responsible for the wording of that design brief. It's appalling.
 

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/10/13, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, 3 October, 2013, 8:30



I agree with you, Pamela. The Cathedral staff must have
had a hard time dealing with the attention &
criticism.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 3 Oct 2013, at 08:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
wrote:



Wednesday,
if you were able to visit the display in Leicester
Cathedral, (they have display boards up in a small side
chapel - I don't mean the City of Leicester exhibition)
you would see that there is a lot of information of
Richard's approach to helping the poor as evidenced by
his first Parliament.  It would be a mistake to focus
entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design
brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time
the design brief was drawn up, has a different
attitude.
At the same time, it is useful to
remember that the traditional view of Christian teaching is
redemption from the sins committed during one's lifetime
and I think that is probably what the original wording was
trying to make reference to.  After all, none of us
assumes Richard was a saint, entirely without sin during his
lifetime, do we?
The
Cathedral, to give them their due, have made a great effort
within the new design to provide Richard with an entire
space to himself, in a central point in the Cathedral, a
place of high honour, where his will be the single focus of
attention for visitors.  He
will have a tomb (leaving aside the current design which
may be changed after the consultation
period).
Of
course, the outcome of the legal process cannot be known at
this stage, but I think we should give some credit to the
Cathedral authorities who have responded to the deluge of
criticism of the original proposal (presumably led by the
then Acting Dean) for a ledger stone by completely changing
their approach.
From:
Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
wrote:

















 






It's not the making money
that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a
pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first
to admit that the only thing I bought at the National
Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.


What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to
shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand
Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester
hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell
for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he
wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him
up" on the other Leicester hand.


I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're
treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no
one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis
Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they
never do.


~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at
3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
wrote:
















 










I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that
Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at
all realistic.

It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but
money will be made because there is so much interest, and
people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or
otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some
just ask for a donation.
A
charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about
Leicester.
Many of us on this
forum will want to see Richard's final resting place,
but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building
has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be
provided, and there will also be a need for staff and
security.
It
may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to
keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a
proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and
if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a
representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that
is not the end of the world! 


From: Wednesday McKenna
<wednesday.mac@...>

To:

Sent:
Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06

Subject: Re:
RE: Funds Row


 









So the city of Leicester
wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral
wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and
stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for
prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in
peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?



I really hope the court rules that
Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this,
"We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a
child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!



~Weds

Wed,
Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]>
wrote:

















 









Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come
out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute
minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb
design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen
on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is
left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional
material about Richard insists on referring to the need
for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical
approach to Richard is very noticeable and
does not reflect well on them.
Their "blocking" on their FB page of
anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design
(including some others who had never posted at all!) -
blockings which were later retracted by another admin there
- also patronising references there to commenters who stated
a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with
Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say
Leicester
Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These
things are noticed by others.


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



I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts
Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't
really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds
at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad
investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract
basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big
article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of
deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one
Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The
Society really should have someone on standby to respond
with a more balanced story when these things happen and make
sure their response grabs the headlines too.





From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>

To:


Sent:
Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re:
Funds Row




 









Well Hilary, we did have a very
experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't
know what has happened lately.  He no longer seems to
be at the helm.Marie ---In
,
<>
wrote:

It puts the Society
out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all
their other contributions and makes them/us appear
'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when
will the Society ever learn? A long time ago
(before January!) I remember saying they needed serious
media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but
unfortunately that's they way of
life.


From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:



Sent: Monday,
23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Funds Row

















 










Or else threats regarding money never, ever look
good, least of all when
it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily
have never been found
and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only
because we support him,
not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause
for so long on our
own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal
property. He isn't. And I
admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It
cannot possibly be an
insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with
everything, then this
happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing
funds was mentioned
a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only
damage the society's
reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not.
This whole thing is
a terrible shame.


 

From: Pamela Furmidge

Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM
To:


Subject: Re: Funds
Row
 
 



Just when you think the publicity couldn't
get any worse, this hits
the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make
the Society a
laughing stock.  It is all very sad.
 




From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>



 




I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228

Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon
the society. Rightly
or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm
in error? But the
impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is
that we would rather
haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw
our contributions
because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried
with the honour and
respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral
is left with the
moral high ground.
 
Sandra
=^..^=















































--






Friend:
Are you upset about the
outcome of the election?

Me:
I'm upset about the
outcome of the War of the Roses.





































--






Friend:
Are you upset about the
outcome of the election?

Me:
I'm upset about the
outcome of the War of the Roses.

" It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude."

It is not "unfortunate wording" - it was wording specifically chosen by the current Dean who was Canon Chancellor at the time of the original design brief, and who had written essentially the same wording in an article in the Church Times on 14th January (before the remains were identified). And the approach is *still* focused on redemption and sin: a portion of the Cathedral website called "Richard III & Me" focuses on this now. The cathedral does seem intent on *using* Richard as a moral example without referring to what they imagine his particular sins to be.

Every human falls short - Richard, like the rest of us, was not perfect - but Leicester Cathedral are moralising over his "legacy" in a way which doesn't happen at anyone else's death/burial/memorial, and using the notion of his particular need for forgiveness as an instrument to make visitors consider their own lives. They are making a judgement on his guilt about something - not about general "sins" - not loving enough, giving enough, etc - but about specific acts for which he would need God's mercy and redemption.

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

I agree with you, Pamela. The Cathedral staff must have had a hard time dealing with the attention & criticism.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 3 Oct 2013, at 08:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Wednesday, if you were able to visit the display in Leicester Cathedral, (they have display boards up in a small side chapel - I don't mean the City of Leicester exhibition) you would see that there is a lot of information of Richard's approach to helping the poor as evidenced by his first Parliament. It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude.
At the same time, it is useful to remember that the traditional view of Christian teaching is redemption from the sins committed during one's lifetime and I think that is probably what the original wording was trying to make reference to. After all, none of us assumes Richard was a saint, entirely without sin during his lifetime, do we?
The Cathedral, to give them their due, have made a great effort within the new design to provide Richard with an entire space to himself, in a central point in the Cathedral, a place of high honour, where his will be the single focus of attention for visitors. He will have a tomb (leaving aside the current design which may be changed after the consultation period).
Of course, the outcome of the legal process cannot be known at this stage, but I think we should give some credit to the Cathedral authorities who have responded to the deluge of criticism of the original proposal (presumably led by the then Acting Dean) for a ledger stone by completely changing their approach. From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:


It's not the making money that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first to admit that the only thing I bought at the National Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.

What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him up" on the other Leicester hand.

I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they never do.

~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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




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

> And the approach is *still* focused on redemption and sin: a portion of the Cathedral website called "Richard III & Me" focuses on
> this now.
Then you probably shouldn't be looking at a church burial anywhere.
Just read the 'Richard III & Me' pdf - I really don't see anything remotely objectionable about it, unless you view the very fact that acknowledging the duality of Richard's reputation is objectionable. The text doesn't judge. In fact, it doesn't attempt to be *about* Richard at all.

Jonathan

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:22
Subject: RE: Funds Row

" It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude." It is not "unfortunate wording" - it was wording specifically chosen by the current Dean who was Canon Chancellor at the time of the original design brief, and who had written essentially the same wording in an article in the Church Times on 14th January (before the remains were identified). And the approach is *still* focused on redemption and sin: a portion of the Cathedral website called "Richard III & Me" focuses on this now. The cathedral does seem intent on *using* Richard as a moral example without referring to what they imagine his particular sins to be. Every human falls short - Richard, like the rest of us, was not perfect - but Leicester Cathedral are moralising over his "legacy" in a way which doesn't happen at anyone else's death/burial/memorial, and using the notion of his particular need for forgiveness as an instrument to make visitors consider their own lives. They are making a judgement on his guilt about something - not about general "sins" - not loving enough, giving enough, etc - but about specific acts for which he would need God's mercy and redemption.

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

I agree with you, Pamela. The Cathedral staff must have had a hard time dealing with the attention & criticism.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 3 Oct 2013, at 08:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Wednesday, if you were able to visit the display in Leicester Cathedral, (they have display boards up in a small side chapel - I don't mean the City of Leicester exhibition) you would see that there is a lot of information of Richard's approach to helping the poor as evidenced by his first Parliament. It would be a mistake to focus entirely on the unfortunate wording from the original design brief - the current Dean, who was not in post at the time the design brief was drawn up, has a different attitude.
At the same time, it is useful to remember that the traditional view of Christian teaching is redemption from the sins committed during one's lifetime and I think that is probably what the original wording was trying to make reference to. After all, none of us assumes Richard was a saint, entirely without sin during his lifetime, do we?
The Cathedral, to give them their due, have made a great effort within the new design to provide Richard with an entire space to himself, in a central point in the Cathedral, a place of high honour, where his will be the single focus of attention for visitors. He will have a tomb (leaving aside the current design which may be changed after the consultation period).
Of course, the outcome of the legal process cannot be known at this stage, but I think we should give some credit to the Cathedral authorities who have responded to the deluge of criticism of the original proposal (presumably led by the then Acting Dean) for a ledger stone by completely changing their approach. From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:


It's not the making money that hurts. That's understandable. Richard as a pop-culture collectible is inevitable. I'd be the first to admit that the only thing I bought at the National Portrait Gallery was a postcard of Himself.

What hurts is the attitude of, "You all need to shut up and go away until the Grand Opening/Grand Reinterment, because we own him" on the one Leicester hand, and the attitude of, "He's burning in hell for what he [allegedly] did, and we'd rather he wasn't here, but we've been told not to give him up" on the other Leicester hand.

I wouldn't treat a dog the way they're treating Richard. Today, on his birthday, I'm glad no one has ever conclusively found, oh, let's say...Francis Lovell's or Anne Neville's bones. And I hope they never do.

~Weds





On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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




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

Jan wrote:

"There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered."

Marie responds:

I think that's a lovely idea, sort of like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for civvies.

---In , <> wrote:

I think they should be replaced in the urn and returned to their place as a monument to how our understanding of history alters in the light of new technology and enquiry. There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:53, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Doug...I cannot remember where I read that...it may be on the Society website....but I have come across this several times. If this is correct and I cannot see why it should not be....then I should think that nothing is going to change on that subject anytime soon.

As to how much of a tourist hot spot the Urn is....when I have visited the Abbey there has always seems to be quite a little crowd gathered there.

But if the contents of the Urn were ever investigated again and found not to be who it is supposed to be I should imagine that would create quite a upheaval....
What to to do with Urn...what to do with the bones....In a strange and awful way it would be quite funny...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EILEEN BATES wrote::
>
>
> //snip//
> "I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
> about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
> Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
> decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
> still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
> know. Just feel completely let down really."
>
> Doug here:
> Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
> re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
> brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
> Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
> responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
> more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
> of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
> So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
> contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
> whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
> based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
> reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
> such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
> negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
> the report.
> Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
> but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
> wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
> that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
> roofing slate and all...
> Doug
> (who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
> albanian...)
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> > have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> > odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> > months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> > squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> > knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> > would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> > rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> > whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> > There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> > matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> > deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> > make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> > King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> > whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> > for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> > what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> > descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> > family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> > bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> > principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> > down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> > the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> > important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> > permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> > clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> > in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> > Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> > too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> > happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> > absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> > family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> > years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> > king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> > king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> > especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> > tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> > whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> > still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> > what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> > even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> > tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> > Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> > Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> > the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> > to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> > possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> > televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> > him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> > planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> > tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> > whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> > him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> > get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> > lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> > The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> > over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> > is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>"
> > <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> > it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> > in-fighting...
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> > want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that.

Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm always a little sceptical when I read press stories about hate mail, abuse and threats received by one party to an argument by their opponents. There's a disreputable history of this sort of claim being splashed across the newspapers as a PR tactic; it's commonly used by vested interest groups to discredit sufferers from various environmental diseases, for instance. What these stories always have in common is that the complainant is bravely soldiering on regardless (even of death threats), the culprit(s) remain anonymous and no evidence can ever be extracted from the "victim" of any complaint having made to the police (even, again, in cases of supposed death threats!).

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I can't help wondering whether Leicester University sought PR advice after Simpson's own little hate campaign was exposed.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

The comments are worth reading. Quite heated. I've just added one  not heated, just having a little go at the main combatants. It's something I've posted here before, so nothing exciting. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 7:17 PM To: Subject: RE: RE: Funds Row

Jonathan wrote:

"Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the in-fighting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html <snip>"
Carol responds:

Someone who doesn't mind his or her full name being posted should react against the repeated use of "Old Crookback" in the headline, the article, and even the comments. And one commenter called him a "sad little man," which probably is not as sympathetic as it may sound. I don't care whether the rites are Catholic or C of E as long as the service is appropriate, respectful, and beautiful, but I'm sick to death of the standard insults and lies going unaddressed. "Old Crookback" was a king and soldier of 32 whose scoliosis went unnoticed in his lifetime--to say nothing of his legislation and other accomplishments. I'd almost rather have Joe Ann Ricca (the "doe-eyed" woman from Las Vegas), whose R III forum I used to belong to and who cannot endure a word of criticism against Richard.

Carol

It would be interesting if anyone could produce a copy of Histories by Marten and Carter........these were books written for children.Henry Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young Elizabeth in matters of constitutional history.I think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's theory.I am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her intransigence. She has cousin that she would do well to listen to.Well, make that least two of them............Prince Michael dared to speak out earlier this year.
Ron. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Funds Row

The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that.Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, I suppose that after saying for years that the urn contains Edward IV's sons, to find that it doesn't might leave egg on one's royal face. Being proved wrong will not go down with one. One didn't like the ignominy suffered at Diana's death, did one? I expect it stuck in one's craw. Well, there aren't enough Ricardians to actually prove that one is wrong this time around. One isn't going to have thousands of subjects laying flowers at one's gates, garnering all the headlines. One doesn't even have to return from one's holiday in Scotland. Neat. If Richard gets the short straw as a result, so what? One is sitting pretty in one of one's palaces. Isn't one? Perhaps one has more respect for one's Tudor history than one's Plantagenet? I'm not a republican  how can I be if I support Richard?  but there are times when I can see why others are. Darn it, there goes my place in one's Honours List. Sandra =^..^= From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:42 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row

It would be interesting if anyone could produce a copy of Histories by Marten and Carter........these were books written for children. Henry Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young Elizabeth in matters of constitutional history. I think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's theory. I am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her intransigence. She has cousin that she would do well to listen to. Well, make that least two of them............Prince Michael dared to speak out earlier this year. Ron. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Funds Row
The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that. Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Annette Carson points out in "Richard III the Maligned King" that the bones were buried 10 foot deep, making it highly unlikely that they are the bones of the princes at all. It would be impossible to dig a hole that deep without shuttering, and the rise in ground level over the centuries is nothing like to that level.I feel fairly convinced by this, so maybe even if the urn can't be opened it would not be pivotal anyway.


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Funds Row

Jan wrote:"There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered." Marie responds:I think that's a lovely idea, sort of like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for civvies.

---In , <> wrote:

I think they should be replaced in the urn and returned to their place as a monument to how our understanding of history alters in the light of new technology and enquiry. There are millions of people who once lived and died in the capital; some of them are found occasionally. The urn can be part of commemorating the unremembered.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 26 Sep 2013, at 17:53, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Doug...I cannot remember where I read that...it may be on the Society website....but I have come across this several times. If this is correct and I cannot see why it should not be....then I should think that nothing is going to change on that subject anytime soon.

As to how much of a tourist hot spot the Urn is....when I have visited the Abbey there has always seems to be quite a little crowd gathered there.

But if the contents of the Urn were ever investigated again and found not to be who it is supposed to be I should imagine that would create quite a upheaval....
What to to do with Urn...what to do with the bones....In a strange and awful way it would be quite funny...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EILEEN BATES wrote::
>
>
> //snip//
> "I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
> about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
> Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
> decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
> still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
> know. Just feel completely let down really."
>
> Doug here:
> Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
> re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
> brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
> Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
> responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
> more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
> of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
> So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
> contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
> whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
> based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
> reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
> such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
> negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
> the report.
> Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
> but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
> wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
> that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
> roofing slate and all...
> Doug
> (who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
> albanian...)
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> > have been a State occasion from the outset.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> > odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> > months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> > squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> > knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> > would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> > rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> > whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> > There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> > matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> > deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> > make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> > King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> > whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> > for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> > what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> > descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> > family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> > bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> > principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> > down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
> >
> > So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> > the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> > important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> > permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> > clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> > in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> > Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> > too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> > happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> > absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> > family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> > years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> > king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> > king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> > especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> > tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> > whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
> >
> > And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> > still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> > what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> > even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> > tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> > Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> > Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> > the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> > to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> > possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> > televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> > him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> > planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
> >
> > What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> > tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> > whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> > him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> > get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> > lot.
> >
> > So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
> >
> > Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> > The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> > over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> > is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<>"
> > <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> > Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> > it is a mess.
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> > in-fighting...
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
> >
> > Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> > want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Sandra,

what a truly magnificent rant and I agree with every word!

Liz

--- In ,
"SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:

SNIP>
yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paul's hasn't been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want.

To be fair, the modus operandi of the monarchy since probably at least George VI has been founded upon a clear understanding of the role as a figurehead and a consequent and rigorously adhered to decision to avoid proactive statements or, indeed, anything that might be viewed as taking sides or interfering. Charles is well aware that whatever freedom of speech he now has will go the second he's crowned. And the Duke of Edinburgh's dictum of "never apologise, never explain" is probably an adjunct to that.

Jonathan


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 13:09
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Well, I suppose that after saying for years that the urn contains Edward IV's sons, to find that it doesn't might leave egg on one's royal face. Being proved wrong will not go down with one. One didn't like the ignominy suffered at Diana's death, did one? I expect it stuck in one's craw. Well, there aren't enough Ricardians to actually prove that one is wrong this time around. One isn't going to have thousands of subjects laying flowers at one's gates, garnering all the headlines. One doesn't even have to return from one's holiday in Scotland. Neat. If Richard gets the short straw as a result, so what? One is sitting pretty in one of one's palaces. Isn't one? Perhaps one has more respect for one's Tudor history than one's Plantagenet? I'm not a republican  how can I be if I support Richard?  but there are times when I can see why others are. Darn it, there goes my place in one's Honours List. Sandra =^..^= From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:42 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row It would be interesting if anyone could produce a copy of Histories by Marten and Carter........these were books written for children. Henry Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young Elizabeth in matters of constitutional history. I think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's theory. I am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her intransigence. She has cousin that she would do well to listen to. Well, make that least two of them............Prince Michael dared to speak out earlier this year. Ron. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Funds Row
The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that. Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

It is my understanding, that the queen is not allowed, either by position or protocol, I don't know, to become involved in controversial matters. Could this be why she is maintaining silence on all these matters?

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 13:09
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Well, I suppose that after saying for years that the urn contains Edward IV's sons, to find that it doesn't might leave egg on one's royal face. Being proved wrong will not go down with one. One didn't like the ignominy suffered at Diana's death, did one? I expect it stuck in one's craw. Well, there aren't enough Ricardians to actually prove that one is wrong this time around. One isn't going to have thousands of subjects laying flowers at one's gates, garnering all the headlines. One doesn't even have to return from one's holiday in Scotland. Neat. If Richard gets the short straw as a result, so what? One is sitting pretty in one of one's palaces. Isn't one? Perhaps one has more respect for one's Tudor history than one's Plantagenet? I'm not a republican  how can I be if I support Richard?  but there are times when I can see why others are. Darn it, there goes my place in one's Honours List. Sandra =^..^= From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:42 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row It would be interesting if anyone could produce a copy of Histories by Marten and Carter........these were books written for children. Henry Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young Elizabeth in matters of constitutional history. I think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's theory. I am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her intransigence. She has cousin that she would do well to listen to. Well, make that least two of them............Prince Michael dared to speak out earlier this year. Ron. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Funds Row
The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that. Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one.
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation.A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester.Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security.It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds

Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm.Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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

Yes, probably, Jessie. I was being facetious. Sorry. Apologies to Her Maj as well. =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:17 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

It is my understanding, that the queen is not allowed, either by position or protocol, I don't know, to become involved in controversial matters. Could this be why she is maintaining silence on all these matters?
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 13:09
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Well, I suppose that after saying for years that the urn contains Edward IV's sons, to find that it doesn't might leave egg on one's royal face. Being proved wrong will not go down with one. One didn't like the ignominy suffered at Diana's death, did one? I expect it stuck in one's craw. Well, there aren't enough Ricardians to actually prove that one is wrong this time around. One isn't going to have thousands of subjects laying flowers at one's gates, garnering all the headlines. One doesn't even have to return from one's holiday in Scotland. Neat. If Richard gets the short straw as a result, so what? One is sitting pretty in one of one's palaces. Isn't one? Perhaps one has more respect for one's Tudor history than one's Plantagenet? I'm not a republican  how can I be if I support Richard?  but there are times when I can see why others are. Darn it, there goes my place in one's Honours List. Sandra =^..^= From: RONALD COOKSLEY Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:42 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Funds Row It would be interesting if anyone could produce a copy of Histories by Marten and Carter........these were books written for children. Henry Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young Elizabeth in matters of constitutional history. I think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's theory. I am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her intransigence. She has cousin that she would do well to listen to. Well, make that least two of them............Prince Michael dared to speak out earlier this year. Ron. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
The Queen's permission would have to be obtained for re-examining the bones in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie it is run directly by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of veto over Richard's burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen personally, but I really do suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright investigation, which took place when she was a child; she possibly identified very strongly with the 'Little Princes', being a child princess herself, and the bones and the murder story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is clear is that she feels protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want anything to do with the bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to read that. Given the background,I don't exactly blame the Queen; I can see where she's coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing wrong and that her approach to Richard is having a hugely detrimental effect. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

EILEEN BATES wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn disturbed again, Maybe they are
still believing the traditional view that Richard was a bad man. I don't
know. Just feel completely let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually
brought to her attention and under what circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen supports the view that she takes her
responsibilities very seriously, but she views her responsibilities to be
more in the area of questioning, via the appropriate Minister, the actions
of her government rather than proposing actions herself.
So, if something came across her desk concerning an examination of the
contents of the Urn, one would expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made it into
such a report as such, but may still have been a factor in the, apparently,
negative conclusions concerning a re-examination provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in charge of Westminster Abbey *not*
wanting to lose any attraction that draws *paying* customers. Especially one
that doesn't require a large sum for upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and all...
Doug
(who's not touching the political side with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In , "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> This whole fuss now is down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should
> have been a State occasion from the outset.
>
> At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because, against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were dancing a collective jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts a complete dogâ?Ts breakfast. To Hell with all the
> squabbling, legal decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
> knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with the immense respect he and his
> rank deserve. He was a good man, and we serve him ill with all this. The
> whole thing has been a (literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with all
> matters royal, including burials. Those high places should decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard died over 500 years ago should not
> make any difference. It should be a State matter because Richard was a
> King of England. You canâ?Tt get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing less will do
> for this king, who died defending England from invasion, because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I donâ?Tt care if the royals are
> descended from the Tudors, they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same
> bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries. Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And they are his royal successors
> down the centuries. The true royal link is what counts now.
>
> So thatâ?Ts what I see as the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on such an
> important decision in the first place. I donâ?Tt care who had a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free pass, winning number, long straw, four-leafed
> clover or whatever. The people (including universities) never have a say
> in such things, and I do not think we have the right to start with
> Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly should not be dictating what
> happens to a king. Itâ?Ts plain daft. And presumptuous. They have
> absolutely no moral connection with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years ago? Just because he has always been damned as a supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no matter what. He will always be a
> king. Nothing can take that from him. And we in Britain, England
> especially, because Richard was the King of England, have just the
> tradition, training, means and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not have the room, that Leicester might
> still be chosen, that St. Paulâ?Ts hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels, or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even though many of us want him. He did not have time to prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which is what he might have had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as he had to marry again. I do not care where the
> Establishment decides he should lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage
> to a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want the procession and ceremony
> televised, I want the whole world to watch, and I want to be able to visit
> him afterwards, as many times as I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there is a deeply incised cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one, whether there are shields around it or not,
> whether some think it too plain, too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll never
> get a design that everyone agrees on anyway. If you did, weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if you please.
>
> Sorry for the swearing, capitals, italics, exclamation marks and so on.
> The tirade came over me, Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes, Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in "sacred"
> over "secular". So the perspective of the rational outsider on all this
> is interesting. "Unedifying" is probably a good word.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>"
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 11:52
> Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> I thought it was well written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is a mess.
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Depressing article, but somewhat inevitable given all of the
> in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some hysterical comments beneath. "So choose Leicester if you
> want to teach immigrants this is a Christian country." Really...?
>
> Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. It's what ALL Christians should be doing, but how many of us do? How many did even in the pious 15th century? Such complete forgiveness would eliminate war, but war is certain sure still with us now. We do NOT do what we should do according to the Lord's Prayer. We want to forgive Richard everything, and we do. We do. Because we admire and support him. But there is an admittedly small trickle of blood behind him. Far greater trails of blood lie in Henry's wake, because he carried on lopping Yorkist heads off until there were no more left to be lopped. Not very Christian. Even worse was his odious son, the next Henry. And there were others, before and after, whose record of blood-letting was pretty horrendous. Up to their knees in the stuff. Yet Richard is squabbled over ignobly and accused unjustly. He cannot be accused simply because he punished a few enemies. He'd be way down at the bottom of a list of similar culprits. He had to survive if he could! And he cannot be fairly accused of the murders in the Tower, because Henry is as likely to be guilty. You cannot put one on trial without the other. Yet Richard is condemned and Henry gets away almost scot free. There's no proof against either of them. And this disgrace is supported by so-called Christians. So much for the Lord's Prayer. Apologies again. I'm in a grumpy mood today. =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world! From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?

I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh!

~Weds
Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others.

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

I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm. Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^=


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

Sandra,

I don't think she's a member on here :-) (now I'm being facetious)
 

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/10/13, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
To:
Date: Thursday, 3 October, 2013, 14:14



Yes, probably, Jessie. I was being facetious. Sorry.
Apologies to Her Maj
as well. =^..^=
 


 

From: Jessie Skinner

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:17 PM
To:


Subject: Re: RE:
Funds
Row
 
 

It is my understanding, that the queen is not
allowed, either by
position or protocol, I don't know, to become involved
in controversial matters.
Could this be why she is maintaining silence on all these
matters?

 

From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:


Sent:
Thursday, 3 October
2013, 13:09
Subject: Re:
RE: Funds Row


 

 






Well, I suppose that after saying for years that the
urn contains Edward
IV's sons, to find that it doesn't might leave egg on
one's royal face. Being
proved wrong will not go down with one. One didn't like
the ignominy suffered at
Diana's death, did one? I expect it stuck in one's craw.
Well, there aren't
enough Ricardians to actually prove that one is wrong this
time around. One
isn't going to have thousands of subjects laying flowers
at one's gates,
garnering all the headlines. One doesn't even have to
return from one's holiday
in Scotland. Neat. If Richard gets the short straw as a
result, so what? One is
sitting pretty in one of one's palaces. Isn't one?
Perhaps one has more respect
for one's Tudor history than one's Plantagenet?
 
I'm not a republican  how can I be if I support
Richard?  but there are
times when I can see why others are. Darn it, there goes my
place in one's
Honours List.
 
Sandra
=^..^=


 


From: RONALD
COOKSLEY
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:42 PM
To:

Subject: Re: Re: RE:
Funds
Row

 

 





It would be interesting if anyone could produce a
copy of Histories
by Marten and Carter........these were books written for
children.
Henry

Marten was Provost of Eton and was tutor to the young
Elizabeth in matters of
constitutional history.
I

think the book(s) would add even more weight to Marie's
theory.
I

am not so generous as Marie in regard to HM and her
intransigence. She has
cousin that she would do well to listen to.
Well, make that least two of them............Prince
Michael dared to speak
out earlier this year.
 
Ron.




From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:


Sent: Thursday, 3
October 2013, 11:59
Subject: RE: Re:
[Richard III Society
Forum] RE: Funds Row


 

 

The Queen's permission would have to be obtained
for re-examining the bones
in the urn since Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - ie
it is run directly
by the Queen. For the same reason she would have right of
veto over Richard's
burial there. Obviously I don't know the Queen
personally, but I really do
suspect she was totally convinced by the Tanner/Wright
investigation, which took
place when she was a child; she possibly identified very
strongly with the
'Little Princes', being a child princess herself,
and the bones and the murder
story are likely to have made a grim impression. What is
clear is that she feels
protective towards the Bones in the Urn but doesn't want
anything to do with the
bones of Richard III, and I think there is only one way to
read that.
Given the background,I don't exactly blame the
Queen; I can see where she's
coming from. But obviously I think she has the whole thing
wrong and that her approach to
Richard is having a hugely
detrimental effect.
Marie


---In
,
<> wrote:


EILEEN BATES
wrote::


//snip//
"I would have thought that the
Royal Family might have had something to say
about the matter. Or
the Prime Minister. Anyone who packs a bit of wallop.
Wrong
again. And yet I understand that the Queen has had input
into the
decision not to have the bones in the Urn
disturbed again, Maybe they
are
still believing the traditional view
that Richard was a bad
man. I don't
know. Just feel completely
let down really."

Doug here:
Does anyone actually know if
the Queen *was* involved in the decision to not
re-examine the
bones in the Urn? Do we know if the matter was ever actually

brought to her attention and under what
circumstances?
Everything I've seen about the Queen
supports the view that she takes
her
responsibilities very seriously, but
she views her
responsibilities to be
more in the area of
questioning, via the
appropriate Minister, the actions
of her
government rather than
proposing actions herself.
So, if something
came across her desk
concerning an examination of the
contents
of the Urn, one would
expect her to re-direct that matter to
whomever was in charge of
Royal "Peculiars" and then make *her* decision
based on whatever
information was provided by that person? Any religious
reasons
for *not* re-examining the contents may never have even made
it into
such a report as such, but may still have been
a factor in the,
apparently,
negative conclusions concerning
a re-examination
provided to the Queen by
the report.
Finally, I
have no idea how popular a tourist attraction the Urn itself
is,
but I can easily imagine whoever's in
charge of Westminster Abbey
*not*
wanting to lose any attraction that
draws *paying*
customers. Especially one
that doesn't
require a large sum for
upkeep! Dust clothes being cheaper than
roofing slate and
all...
Doug
(who's not
touching the political side
with a 10-foot pole. Or even a 6-foot
albanian...)


--- In ,
"SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:

>
>
This whole fuss now is
down to one thing â?" Richardâ?Ts reburial should

> have
been a State occasion from the outset.
>
>
At the beginning of this year we were ecstatic because,
against all the
> odds, Richard had been found. We were
dancing a collective
jig. Now, only
> months later, itâ?Ts
a complete dogâ?Ts
breakfast. To Hell with all the
>
squabbling, legal
decisions, delays, self-seeking and arrogance. No one
>
knows Richardâ?Ts personal wishes, only he did. I am sure
that all he
> would want now would be to be buried with
the immense respect
he and his
> rank deserve. He was a
good man, and we serve
him ill with all this. The
> whole
thing has been a
(literally) monumental cock-up from the outset.
> There are
â?~high placesâ?T in our establishment that deal with
all
>
matters royal, including burials. Those high places should
decide now, and
> deal with it all. The fact that Richard
died over 500 years
ago should not
> make any difference.
It should be a State
matter because Richard was a
> King of
England. You canâ?Tt
get much more royal than that. And I want the
> whole
blâ?"dy royal family to turn out on the day! Nothing
less will do
> for this king, who died defending England
from invasion,
because thatâ?Ts
> what Henry
Tudorâ?Ts forces were. I
donâ?Tt care if the royals are
>
descended from the Tudors,
they cannot deny Richard, from whose immediate
> family they
are also descended. There is still a sharing of the same

>
bloodline, no matter how watered down over the centuries.
Itâ?Ts the
> principle that should matter to them. And
they are his royal
successors
> down the centuries. The
true royal link is what
counts now.
>
> So
thatâ?Ts what I see as
the only just solution to this whole thing. We,
> the hoi
polloi (sorry, but we are) should never have been in on
such an
> important decision in the first place. I
donâ?Tt care who had
a licence,
> permit, day ticket, free
pass, winning number,
long straw, four-leafed
> clover or
whatever. The people
(including universities) never have a say
> in such things,
and I do not think we have the right to start with
>
Richard. What on earth is the matter with us? The
Plantagenet Alliance is
> too remote from anything, and certainly
should not be
dictating what
> happens to a king.
Itâ?Ts plain daft. And
presumptuous. They have
> absolutely
no moral connection
with him at all. Nor do we. The royal
> family does. Why is
he being treated like this? Just because he died 500
> years
ago? Just because he has always been damned as a
supposedly wicked
> king? B-gg-r that! He is STILL A KING, no
matter what. He will
always be a
> king. Nothing can take
that from him. And we
in Britain, England
> especially,
because Richard was the
King of England, have just the
>
tradition, training, means
and splendour to act accordingly. I want the
> whole
glorious shebang for him. All the trappings. We owe
him!
>
> And yes, I know Westminster would not
have the room, that
Leicester might
> still be chosen,
that St. Paulâ?Ts
hasnâ?Tt been mentioned, I do NOT know
> what Windsor feels,
or York, and that poor old Gloucester will lose out,
> even
though many of us want him. He did not have time to
prepare a true
> tomb for himself along with Anne, which
is what he might have
had in mind.
> Although maybe not, as
he had to marry again.
I do not care where the
>
Establishment decides he should
lie, just that it is appropriate and that
> the funeral is a
wonderful event that pays Christian and National homage

> to
a king. Being Christian is what would have mattered to a
man who
> possessed the Bible in English. I want
the procession and
ceremony
> televised, I want the whole
world to watch, and I
want to be able to visit
> him
afterwards, as many times as
I want. This is what should have been
> planned from the
moment it was realised we had actually found HIM.
>
> What I do not care about is whether there
is a deeply incised
cross on his
> tomb, or a shallow one,
whether there are
shields around it or not,
> whether
some think it too plain,
too modern, too this, too that. Itâ?Ts
> him we wish to
honour, not our own personal artistic taste. Youâ?Tll
never
> get a design that everyone agrees on
anyway. If you did,
weâ?Td be a dull
> lot.
>
> So, a State funeral fit for a king, if
you please.
>
> Sorry for the
swearing, capitals, italics,
exclamation marks and so on.
> The
tirade came over me,
Iâ?Tm afraid.
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Jonathan
Evans
>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re:
RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
> Yes,
Howse is a decent journalist with a specific interest in
"sacred"
> over "secular". So the
perspective of the rational outsider on
all this
> is interesting.
"Unedifying" is probably a good
word.
>
>
Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To:
"<>"

> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013,
11:52
>
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
>
>
>
>
I thought it was well
written, and had a lot of salient points. But, yes,
> it is
a mess.
>
> On Sep
25, 2013, at 5:21 AM,
"Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
Depressing article, but
somewhat inevitable given all of the
>
in-fighting...
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10331395/A-sordid-song-and-dance-over-Richard-IIIs-bones.html
>
> Oh - and some
hysterical comments beneath.
"So choose Leicester if you
>
want to teach immigrants this
is a Christian country." Really...?
>
>
Jonathan
>




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

Yahoo! Groups
Links

Be grumpy; you have a right to. A couple of weeks' ago I was in a church that had a beautiful window depicting Cranmer. You know Cranmer (those of us of a certain age think of the kindly Bernard Hepton). But before he died (horribly I agree) he was one of a number of clergy who persecuted Lollards in the reigns of Henry VII and the young Henry VIII. They passed them from one bishop to another, keeping them as prisoners chained by the neck in their cellars before giving them up to the flames or to be hung drawn and quartered in the most humiliating way. It was so bad that even the young Henry VIII intervened and threatend to take such powers from them.Before the clergy, Protestant or Catholic, say Richard or anyone must atone, perhaps they should look to their own history. We are all human, we all make the wrong judgment (if Richard did) for what we think is the right reason. As Nic says in his poem it is for a higher judge to decide; not the staff of any cathedral. H From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. It's what ALL Christians should be doing, but how many of us do? How many did even in the pious 15th century? Such complete forgiveness would eliminate war, but war is certain sure still with us now. We do NOT do what we should do according to the Lord's Prayer. We want to forgive Richard everything, and we do. We do. Because we admire and support him. But there is an admittedly small trickle of blood behind him. Far greater trails of blood lie in Henry's wake, because he carried on lopping Yorkist heads off until there were no more left to be lopped. Not very Christian. Even worse was his odious son, the next Henry. And there were others, before and after, whose record of blood-letting was pretty horrendous. Up to their knees in the stuff. Yet Richard is squabbled over ignobly and accused unjustly. He cannot be accused simply because he punished a few enemies. He'd be way down at the bottom of a list of similar culprits. He had to survive if he could! And he cannot be fairly accused of the murders in the Tower, because Henry is as likely to be guilty. You cannot put one on trial without the other. Yet Richard is condemned and Henry gets away almost scot free. There's no proof against either of them. And this disgrace is supported by so-called Christians. So much for the Lord's Prayer. Apologies again. I'm in a grumpy mood today. =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world! From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?
I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh! ~Weds Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote: Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others. ---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm. Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^= -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Oh the good old days..................

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 2:04:34 PM

 

Be grumpy; you have a right to. A couple of weeks' ago I was in a church that had a beautiful window depicting Cranmer. You know Cranmer (those of us of a certain age think of the kindly Bernard Hepton). But before he died (horribly I agree) he was one of a number of clergy who persecuted Lollards in the reigns of Henry VII and the young Henry VIII. They passed them from one bishop to another, keeping them as prisoners chained by the neck in their cellars before giving them up to the flames or to be hung drawn and quartered in the most humiliating way. It was so bad that even the young Henry VIII intervened and threatend to take such powers from them.Before the clergy, Protestant or Catholic, say Richard or anyone must atone, perhaps they should look to their own history. We are all human, we all make the wrong judgment (if Richard did) for what we think is the right reason. As Nic says in his poem it is for a higher judge to decide; not the staff of any cathedral.   H   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
  Forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us.   It's what ALL Christians should be doing, but how many of us do? How many did even in the pious 15th century? Such complete forgiveness would eliminate war, but war is certain sure still with us now. We do NOT do what we should do according to the Lord's Prayer. We want to forgive Richard everything, and we do. We do. Because we admire and support him. But there is an admittedly small trickle of blood behind him. Far greater trails of blood lie in Henry's wake, because he carried on lopping Yorkist heads off until there were no more left to be lopped. Not very Christian. Even worse was his odious son, the next Henry. And there were others, before and after, whose record of blood-letting was pretty horrendous. Up to their knees in the stuff. Yet Richard is squabbled over ignobly and accused unjustly. He cannot be accused simply because he punished a few enemies. He'd be way down at the bottom of a list of similar culprits. He had to survive if he could! And he cannot be fairly accused of the murders in the Tower, because Henry is as likely to be guilty. You cannot put one on trial without the other. Yet Richard is condemned and Henry gets away almost scot free. There's no proof against either of them. And this disgrace is supported by so-called Christians. So much for the Lord's Prayer.   Apologies again. I'm in a grumpy mood today.   =^..^=     From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row     Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.
  From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
    A very good post, Jessie.  Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned.  Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one.   From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

  I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world!   From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
    So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?
I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh! ~Weds   Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:   Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others. ---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too.   From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
  Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately.  He no longer seems to be at the helm. Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
  Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame.   From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row     Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock.  It is all very sad.   From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
  I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground.   Sandra =^..^= -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

I think all the cathedral is saying is that *everyone* must atone (gross over-simplification) - it's pretty basic church doctrine, and I'm sure you'd get the same across the CofE.

Re Richard getting pilloried and other monarchs getting off scot free, we're fighting 500 years worth of mythologizing - not just in the case of Richard's "crimes" but, for instance, the heroics of Edward I or Henry V. Monarchy is, by definition, self-mythologizing with an emphasis on the continuity of God's dispensation. Its history is to be celebrated, and momentary jolts when the points change (e.g. Richard II giving way to Henry IV) are smoothed over. But with Richard and Henry, the train came off the tracks in a way that was unprecedented - at least since the Conquest. So the usual beneficent PR turns feral.

It surely comes down to education, ultimately. People are now, for perhaps the first time, being educated about Richard and I get a sense of perceptions slowly changing. By the same token, the re-education process about Henry VIII - thanks, loathe though I am to say it, to people like Starkey - has been going on for 20-odd years, and the jolly image of his is being replaced by something darker.

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 15:04
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Be grumpy; you have a right to. A couple of weeks' ago I was in a church that had a beautiful window depicting Cranmer. You know Cranmer (those of us of a certain age think of the kindly Bernard Hepton). But before he died (horribly I agree) he was one of a number of clergy who persecuted Lollards in the reigns of Henry VII and the young Henry VIII. They passed them from one bishop to another, keeping them as prisoners chained by the neck in their cellars before giving them up to the flames or to be hung drawn and quartered in the most humiliating way. It was so bad that even the young Henry VIII intervened and threatend to take such powers from them.Before the clergy, Protestant or Catholic, say Richard or anyone must atone, perhaps they should look to their own history. We are all human, we all make the wrong judgment (if Richard did) for what we think is the right reason. As Nic says in his poem it is for a higher judge to decide; not the staff of any cathedral. H From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. It's what ALL Christians should be doing, but how many of us do? How many did even in the pious 15th century? Such complete forgiveness would eliminate war, but war is certain sure still with us now. We do NOT do what we should do according to the Lord's Prayer. We want to forgive Richard everything, and we do. We do. Because we admire and support him. But there is an admittedly small trickle of blood behind him. Far greater trails of blood lie in Henry's wake, because he carried on lopping Yorkist heads off until there were no more left to be lopped. Not very Christian. Even worse was his odious son, the next Henry. And there were others, before and after, whose record of blood-letting was pretty horrendous. Up to their knees in the stuff. Yet Richard is squabbled over ignobly and accused unjustly. He cannot be accused simply because he punished a few enemies. He'd be way down at the bottom of a list of similar culprits. He had to survive if he could! And he cannot be fairly accused of the murders in the Tower, because Henry is as likely to be guilty. You cannot put one on trial without the other. Yet Richard is condemned and Henry gets away almost scot free. There's no proof against either of them. And this disgrace is supported by so-called Christians. So much for the Lord's Prayer. Apologies again. I'm in a grumpy mood today. =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world! From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?
I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh! ~Weds Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote: Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others. ---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm. Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^= -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

It is absolutely *not* basic across the CoE to suggest that people pray for a dead person so that their sins can be forgiven. Referring to a deceased person's need for forgiveness (esp one already maligned by history) is simply not appropriate and is very much a judgement that is not anyone's to make: what Leicester Cathedral are doing with their "inappropriate words" is very much out of the ordinary. Attend any funeral or memorial service and no member of the clergy will be speaking saying "pray for this man because he was a man of honourable and dishonourable characteristics; or think on this man and his life and consider amending your own life" - this is in essence what is being done to Richard.

---In , <> wrote:

I think all the cathedral is saying is that *everyone* must atone (gross over-simplification) - it's pretty basic church doctrine, and I'm sure you'd get the same across the CofE.

Re Richard getting pilloried and other monarchs getting off scot free, we're fighting 500 years worth of mythologizing - not just in the case of Richard's "crimes" but, for instance, the heroics of Edward I or Henry V. Monarchy is, by definition, self-mythologizing with an emphasis on the continuity of God's dispensation. Its history is to be celebrated, and momentary jolts when the points change (e.g. Richard II giving way to Henry IV) are smoothed over. But with Richard and Henry, the train came off the tracks in a way that was unprecedented - at least since the Conquest. So the usual beneficent PR turns feral.

It surely comes down to education, ultimately. People are now, for perhaps the first time, being educated about Richard and I get a sense of perceptions slowly changing. By the same token, the re-education process about Henry VIII - thanks, loathe though I am to say it, to people like Starkey - has been going on for 20-odd years, and the jolly image of his is being replaced by something darker.

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 15:04
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row

Be grumpy; you have a right to. A couple of weeks' ago I was in a church that had a beautiful window depicting Cranmer. You know Cranmer (those of us of a certain age think of the kindly Bernard Hepton). But before he died (horribly I agree) he was one of a number of clergy who persecuted Lollards in the reigns of Henry VII and the young Henry VIII. They passed them from one bishop to another, keeping them as prisoners chained by the neck in their cellars before giving them up to the flames or to be hung drawn and quartered in the most humiliating way. It was so bad that even the young Henry VIII intervened and threatend to take such powers from them.Before the clergy, Protestant or Catholic, say Richard or anyone must atone, perhaps they should look to their own history. We are all human, we all make the wrong judgment (if Richard did) for what we think is the right reason. As Nic says in his poem it is for a higher judge to decide; not the staff of any cathedral. H From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
Forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. It's what ALL Christians should be doing, but how many of us do? How many did even in the pious 15th century? Such complete forgiveness would eliminate war, but war is certain sure still with us now. We do NOT do what we should do according to the Lord's Prayer. We want to forgive Richard everything, and we do. We do. Because we admire and support him. But there is an admittedly small trickle of blood behind him. Far greater trails of blood lie in Henry's wake, because he carried on lopping Yorkist heads off until there were no more left to be lopped. Not very Christian. Even worse was his odious son, the next Henry. And there were others, before and after, whose record of blood-letting was pretty horrendous. Up to their knees in the stuff. Yet Richard is squabbled over ignobly and accused unjustly. He cannot be accused simply because he punished a few enemies. He'd be way down at the bottom of a list of similar culprits. He had to survive if he could! And he cannot be fairly accused of the murders in the Tower, because Henry is as likely to be guilty. You cannot put one on trial without the other. Yet Richard is condemned and Henry gets away almost scot free. There's no proof against either of them. And this disgrace is supported by so-called Christians. So much for the Lord's Prayer. Apologies again. I'm in a grumpy mood today. =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row Thank you Pamela.
I just checked and the admission price to York Minster is £10.00 for the Minster alone and £15.00 for the Minster and the tower. This admission does last for a year though, so you can make as many visits as you like. I don't blame them for charging, because these magnificent buildings do take a very great deal of maintenance, and no one wants to see them fall down.
However, there are a great many important graves at York, less so at Leicester. This would, IMO, give Richard more importance and prominence if his grave was in Leicester, where after all, he has been for 500 years.
As to making recompense for his sins, we, here, find him guilty of less sins than many others who haven't looked at the evidence, but he certainly can't have been without sin, none of us are, so to pray for forgiveness for him is not out of place.
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 8:02
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Funds Row
A very good post, Jessie. Of course Richard's reburial site will be a draw for tourists and any location will capitalise on that for the reasons you have mentioned. Currently there is no admission charge to Leicester Cathedral and they say there is no intention of imposing one. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

I am not at all sure that expecting anywhere that Richard is buried will not try to make money out of it is at all realistic.
It doesn't have to be nasty, or tasteless, but money will be made because there is so much interest, and people will want to see the tomb, and pay their respects, or otherwise. Not all British cathedrals charge for entry, some just ask for a donation. A charge is made at York Minster, but I don't know about Leicester. Many of us on this forum will want to see Richard's final resting place, but if it is to be housed in a cathedral then that building has to be maintained, heating and lighting has to be provided, and there will also be a need for staff and security. It may have been much cheaper, and more peaceful for him, to keep him buried under the car park in Leicester, but a proper burial with due ceremonial will be much better, and if I have an opportunity to buy a coffee mug with a representation of his face reconstruction on it, then that is not the end of the world! From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 20:06
Subject: Re: RE: Funds Row
So the city of Leicester wants to make riches off of him, while Leicester Cathedral wants to reluctantly stick his bones under the floor and stuff his soul in Hell and...what? Collect tourist money for prayers on behalf of that immortal soul they say is in peril? Do any of us believe they'd say one prayer?
I really hope the court rules that Richard's bones belong to his descendants, because this, "We love him as cash-king and damn him for being a child-murdering usurper" attitude really....ngh! ~Weds Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote: Actually, Sandra, I think the Society does come out well re the funding of the tomb issue. An absolute minimum of people have stated that they like the tomb design - and I am not just counting people who are not keen on the idea of Leicester. I don't think the cathedral is left with the moral high-ground - most of their promotional material about Richard insists on referring to the need for redemption, mercy, sins forgiven - this critical approach to Richard is very noticeable and does not reflect well on them. Their "blocking" on their FB page of anyone who expressed a negative view of the tomb design (including some others who had never posted at all!) - blockings which were later retracted by another admin there - also patronising references there to commenters who stated a desire to see a tomb design that was in keeping with Richard's status as a king and warrior: I'd say Leicester Cathedral are not covering themselves in glory. These things are noticed by others. ---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: I looked in the latests Bulletin and accounts Marie and apart from expenditure on adverts couldn't really find him/anyone. They seem to have a fair few funds at the moment, so I don't think it would be a bad investment; even if it was only on a part-time contract basis, There's a front pager on BBC History and big article 'accusing' Richard and Henry (!) of deliberately concealing the fate of the princes (by one Leandra Lisle, history graduate turned journalist). The Society really should have someone on standby to respond with a more balanced story when these things happen and make sure their response grabs the headlines too. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:17
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Funds Row
Well Hilary, we did have a very experienced PR officer in Richard Van Allen, but I don't know what has happened lately. He no longer seems to be at the helm. Marie ---In , <> wrote: It puts the Society out on a limb, which is a shame because it devalues all their other contributions and makes them/us appear 'eccentrics'. Journalists are good at that; when will the Society ever learn? A long time ago (before January!) I remember saying they needed serious media advice and they do. I hate spin doctors but unfortunately that's they way of life. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 14:44
Subject: Re: Funds Row
Or else threats regarding money never, ever look good, least of all when it involves the burial of a king who could so very easily have never been found and therefore never reburied at all. He's our king only because we support him, not because he belongs to us. Having gathered to his cause for so long on our own, I think we have begun to regard him as personal property. He isn't. And I admit to liking the tomb design, and its simplicity. It cannot possibly be an insult to Richard. We were feeling upbeat and pleased with everything, then this happens along. I was shocked when the subject of withdrawing funds was mentioned a week ago (or whenever). It seemed to me it could only damage the society's reputation. That is still my opinion, and I wish it was not. This whole thing is a terrible shame. From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:19 PM To: Subject: Re: Funds Row Just when you think the publicity couldn't get any worse, this hits the web......it seems that everything is conspiring to make the Society a laughing stock. It is all very sad. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I've just been sent this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24201228 Oh, dear. I'm dismayed by the way it seems to reflect upon the society. Rightly or wrongly, we do not appear in the best light. Maybe I'm in error? But the impression I have gained (from this article, I stress) is that we would rather haggle and argue over the design of the tomb, and withdraw our contributions because we can't have it our way, than see Richard buried with the honour and respect the cathedral is trying to give him. The cathedral is left with the moral high ground. Sandra =^..^= -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.