Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.

It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> started.
> Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> his intentions regarding his burial.
> Delay upon delay. Why?
> And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> Makes me sick.
> Paul
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@...>
> Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@...>
> To: Paul <bale475@...>
>
>
>
> Judicial Review Adjourned
>
>
> <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> The Richard III Society
>
> /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
>
> View this email in your browser
> <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
>
>
>
> The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> Courts of Justice in London.
>
> In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> submissions had been made by all parties.
>
> There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
>
> Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> amended to allow for an extension.
>
> Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> consultation would take place.
>
> A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
>
> * Executive Committee*
>
> /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> http://www.richardiii.net.
>
> *Our mailing address is:*
> The Richard III Society
> 2 Field Hurst
> Langley Broom
> Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> United Kingdom
>
> Add us to your address book
> <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
>
>
> unsubscribe from this list
> <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> update subscription preferences
> <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
>
>
> Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
>

I tend to agree with you on this, Paul. The whole thing is becoming a nonsense.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this started.
Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated his intentions regarding his burial.
Delay upon delay. Why?
And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
Makes me sick.
Paul

Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I do so agree. It's nothing to do with caring for a person; it is totally about greed. H 

On Friday, 29 November 2013, 15:49, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
  Happy Birthday!
On Nov 29, 2013, at 9:48 AM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:

  It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:08:45 PM

  Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net/.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

Jonathan wrote:

"I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted."

I totally agree with you, Jonathan. I think these people acted out of the best intentions, and feelings in certain quarters in Yorkshire certainly run high for quite understandable reasons. But my gut feeling is that Richard's remains will eventually be laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral whatever objections are mounted, and that all that the Alliance will have succeeded in doing is damage - unseemly, expensive, and to use Eileen's apt term, 'demeaning'.

Marie

I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Eileen wrote:

"How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything."

Marie replies:

Not so extraordinary, perhaps: the one surely follows from the other. The Queen would appear to believe implicitly that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and that - ergo - Richard was a psychopath who had the poor mites murdered and their bodies hidden deep in unconsecrated ground. I expect, given her age, that her attitudes on this are set in stone and the discovery of Richard's crooked spine has probably merely confirmed for her the veracity of More's account of Richard and his evil deeds (minus the priestly reinterment of the Princes, of course).

It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.

The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.

I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
has turned into.
Eileen
In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>

There's the Duke of Gloucester, obviously. I'm only guessing what QEII thinks about Richard of course, but it does seem to follow from her stance on the Bones. She would have been well and truly "got to" at an early age, when her father gave permission for the Bones to be examined by Tanner and Wright. She's not of an age now to change her mind about things.

Marie

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Eileen. It seems the least they could do is acknowledge the remains, and favor a dignified repose. I thought they were over their PR gaffes. I suppose not.

It's rather dinosaurish isn't it....? Eileen
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
>
> The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
>
> I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> has turned into.
> Eileen
> In <mailto:>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >
>

Maybe a few too many Gin and Tonics. I can see that the Royal Family might want to enter the fray. However, they could simply say, this was a crowned king. May he be reinterred with dignity and solemnity. They do not have to comment on anything, the princes, the War of Roses, the urn, nada. Just say something to get this behind us. And who or what makes up the Plantagenet Alliance? How are they now a part of this circus?
On Nov 29, 2013, at 12:29 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Eileen. It seems the least they could do is acknowledge the remains, and favor a dignified repose. I thought they were over their PR gaffes. I suppose not.

It's rather dinosaurish isn't it....? Eileen
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
>
> The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
>
> I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> has turned into.
> Eileen
> In <mailto:>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >
>

There's the Duke of Gloucester, obviously. I'm only guessing what QEII thinks about Richard of course, but it does seem to follow from her stance on the Bones. She would have been well and truly "got to" at an early age, when her father gave permission for the Bones to be examined by Tanner and Wright. She's not of an age now to change her mind about things.

Marie

Stephen, You're absolutely right, of course. The Queen's grandfather.

Marie

There's the Duke of Gloucester, obviously. I'm only guessing what QEII thinks about Richard of course, but it does seem to follow from her stance on the Bones. She would have been well and truly "got to" at an early age, when her father gave permission for the Bones to be examined by Tanner and Wright. She's not of an age now to change her mind about things.

Marie

I agree, Marie.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 Jonathan wrote:

"I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted."

I totally agree with you, Jonathan. I think these people acted out of the best intentions, and feelings in certain quarters in Yorkshire certainly run high for quite understandable reasons. But my gut feeling is that Richard's remains will eventually be laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral whatever objections are mounted, and that all that the Alliance will have succeeded in doing is damage - unseemly, expensive, and to use Eileen's apt term, 'demeaning'.

Marie

I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I feel sure that the queen is very well acquainted with what is going on, I am told she is a very smart lady, but she is constitutionally bound not to enter into controversy, and she is very dutiful.
Don't know about Charles though.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Eileen. It seems the least they could do is acknowledge the remains, and favor a dignified repose. I thought they were over their PR gaffes. I suppose not.

It's rather dinosaurish isn't it....? Eileen
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
>
> The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
>
> I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> has turned into.
> Eileen
> In <mailto:>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >
>

This is just my opinion, but if the Queen were to acknowledge Richard as anything but a murderous usurper,that stole the crown from the rightful King Edward V, she is tacitly acknowledging the fact that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, and as such, casts a shadow on the reigns of every monarch after Richard's death at Bosworth, including her own. By staying silent, she is not forced to take one side or another.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I agree Eileen. It seems the least they could do is acknowledge the remains, and favor a dignified repose. I thought they were over their PR gaffes. I suppose not.

It's rather dinosaurish isn't it....? Eileen
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
>
> The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
>
> I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> has turned into.
> Eileen
> In <mailto:>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >
>

I do not know. I do believe however, that the last laugh might be his. After all, some five hundred years later, he is still The Man!!!

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

It's become a complete and utter joke frankly. Trouble is it looks like the joke is on Richard. I seriously wonder what on earth he did to deserve all of this.

Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "< >" < >
Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

Yes, that is exactly the word, demeaning......

On Nov 29, 2013, at 9:08 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London .
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

The Queen is history! Right or wrong…..she can do what she damn well pleases. I would be nice if one of the Princes would say something.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of EILEEN BATES
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

I think that as well Liz...now if he was a gee gee......Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Plus, I forgot to say, from everything I have read and heard, the Queen herself isn't really intersted in history. Not the way people like us are.
>
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: " " < >
> Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 21:12
> Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
>
>
>
> Absolutely spot on Marie, that's exactly what I think. Added to that, I think, is the fact that the Queen abhors controversy (mainly I suspect because of the Abdication crisis and the huge impression it must have made on her as a child) so will go along with advice to keep the status quo regarding the bones and also to inter Richard with as little pomp as possible. Just get him buried and hope people will stop making a fuss.
>
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 17:39
> Subject: RE: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
> "How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything."
>
> Marie replies:
> Not so extraordinary, perhaps: the one surely follows from the other. The Queen would appear to believe implicitly that these are the bones of Edward V and his brother, and that - ergo - Richard was a psychopath who had the poor mites murdered and their bodies hidden deep in unconsecrated ground. I expect, given her age, that her attitudes on this are set in stone and the discovery of Richard's crooked spine has probably merely confirmed for her the veracity of More's account of Richard and his evil deeds (minus the priestly reinterment of the Princes,
> of course).
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
>
> It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
>
> The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
>
> I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> has turned into.
> Eileen
> In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> >>
> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> >>
>

Maybe, Eileen, QE has had a quiet word in someone's ear - a quiet word wouldn't help. Say, for example:-

1) She whispered in favour of leaving him in Leicester. That might explain the apparent "done deal" but could not have stopped the legal challenges.

2) She more recently decided York was a nice idea, and had a quiet word with the judiciary to fix it by allowing the Plantagenet Alliance their (successful) day in court.

What would have happened if HM had suggested Westminster? Would that have prevented calls for Richard to be buried in York? I don't know.

Marie

Oh I have!
He took me out for breakfast in a lovely French cafe too. It was like being in Montmartre.
Also, my eldest daughter and her children came to tea and brought birthday cake and presents, and our youngest daughter is cooking us a meal on Monday evening so I get to see my newest granddaughter too.
I am very spoiled!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Happy birthday.  Sounds like you have a good husband   Liz
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>; "eileenbates147@btinternet com" <eileenbates147@...>
Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned



It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:08:45 PM

  Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

Oh I have!
He took me out for breakfast in a lovely French cafe too. It was like being in Montmartre.
Also, my eldest daughter and her children came to tea and brought birthday cake and presents, and our youngest daughter is cooking us a meal on Monday evening so I get to see my newest granddaughter too.
I am very spoiled!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Happy birthday.  Sounds like you have a good husband   Liz
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>; "eileenbates147@btinternet com" <eileenbates147@...>
Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned



It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:08:45 PM

  Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London.
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

As you should be…..

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:43 PM
To: @yahoogroups com ; ferrymansdaughter@...
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

Oh I have!
He took me out for breakfast in a lovely French cafe too. It was like being in Montmartre .
Also, my eldest daughter and her children came to tea and brought birthday cake and presents, and our youngest daughter is cooking us a meal on Monday evening so I get to see my newest granddaughter too.
I am very spoiled!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> ;
To: < > ;
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 9:19:10 PM

Happy birthday. Sounds like you have a good husband

Liz

From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "@yahoogroups com" < > ; "eileenbates147@btinternet com" <eileenbates147@...>
Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned

It is my birthday today and my dear husband has bought me a framed portrait of Richard III from the National Portrait Gallery. It is lovely, and I have hung it in my newly refitted kitchen, where it looks wonderful.
What an amazing present.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> ;
To: < > ;
Subject: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:08:45 PM

Pamela..I have no answers...only I just despair now of the whole thing, It is now becoming demeaning to Richard...the whole thing. He lost his life, his reputation and now his dignity...and this for a second time. I've long felt unhappy/uneasy about how it has panned out. From the programme...the tests his remains have undergone...surely that has gone over the top now. Of course we needed to know how he had died but they have absolutely maxed it out to the limit now..I cannot get over the fact that
Richard's remains have been left in a university...it's now gone beyond the pale and it's distasteful and appalling. Richard needs to be laid to rest....the State/Royal Family should step in and make the final decision ...and everybody would have no choice but to abide by that..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, you hit right on the nail. This swings from farce to tragedy. I simply do not understand why the "people in charge" cannot decide how, where, when to lay to rest a King of England. Last week we in the US were reminded of the pomp and ceremony surrounding the John F Kennedy burial. Of course, there were family members directly involved, and the man's body was not lost. But still, why, why, why?????
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:57 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You got it right Paul..King Richard lies in a cardboard box at the University, It seems it was just wishful thinking it could be arranged he could be at a suitable religious place while they sorted out this mess. Why did the State not step in and take over,...giving him the reburial he deserves that is suitable for an annointed King. I blame many people including the Royal Family who as usual do their ostrich impersonations...I think they actually do not give a toss.
>
> It is now a complete and utter farce. They are even arguing about how the bones should be laid out in the coffin....My God...it's not rocket science is it...lay him out in the proper fashion as you would any human being. Really beyond belief...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto: >, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust those good people with the Plantagenet Alliance who started all
> > this are pleased to know their "beloved relative" will remain in a
> > cardboard box on a shelf somewhere for even longer than when all this
> > started.
> > Like many I am still waiting to see any document where Richard stated
> > his intentions regarding his burial.
> > Delay upon delay. Why?
> > And where as a result does my truly beloved king rest?
> > Makes me sick.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Judicial Review Adjourned
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:22:12 +0000
> > From: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > Reply-To: The Richard III Society <riii_mailings@>
> > To: Paul <bale475@>
> >
> >
> >
> > Judicial Review Adjourned
> >
> >
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=832c67e225&e=682640b889>
> > The Richard III Society
> >
> > /Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924/
> > Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
> >
> > View this email in your browser
> > <http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=7870495dbf&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> >
> > The Judicial Review petitioned by the Plantagenet Alliance against the
> > Ministry of Justice and the University of Leicester and naming the Dean
> > & Chapter of Leicester Cathedral and the Dean & Chapter of York Minster
> > as interested parties, was held today (26th November) in the Royal
> > Courts of Justice in London .
> >
> > In a surprise move Leicester City Council made representations to the
> > Court to be considered as a party to the Review and after a short recess
> > the presiding judges, Lady Justice Hallett, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and
> > Lord Justice Ouseley, ruled that the Council become the third defendant
> > in the Review and consequently the proceedings were adjourned. The
> > decision was based on the Council's claim as the landowner of the site
> > where the remains of King Richard were found. It is intention of the
> > judges that the Review will be re-scheduled early in the new year after
> > submissions had been made by all parties.
> >
> > There was concern at the delay in the proceedings in view of the terms
> > of the Exhumation Licence granted by the MoJ in September 2012 and which
> > required the bones of King Richard be re-interred by the end of August 2014.
> >
> > Mr Eady, representing the MoJ, confirmed that the Licence could be
> > amended to allow for an extension.
> >
> > Mr Palmer, acting for Leicester City Council, stated that his client
> > would be prepared to hold a consultation on the future of King Richard's
> > re-burial and when pressed by the Judges, he confirmed that such a
> > consultation would take place.
> >
> > A more in-depth report on today's proceedings will shortly be made
> > available on the Society's website and through RIII Mailings and to B&Gs.
> >
> > * Executive Committee*
> >
> > /Copyright © 2013 The Richard III Society, All rights reserved./
> > You are receiving this e-mail because your are either a member of The
> > Richard III Society, or you opted-in from our web site
> > http://www.richardiii.net.
> >
> > *Our mailing address is:*
> > The Richard III Society
> > 2 Field Hurst
> > Langley Broom
> > Slough, Berkshire SL3 8PQ
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Add us to your address book
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/vcard?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a>
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe from this list
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889&c=7870495dbf>
> > update subscription preferences
> > <http://richardiii.us7.list-manage1.com/profile?u=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&id=6e7c37b91a&e=682640b889>
> >
> >
> > Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
> > <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=7ed2fe2d5b833d362f22d476b&afl=1>
> >
>

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

I feel sure we can agree to disagree on this amicably, however, another thought that occurred to me, was that the rest of his body has already been subsumed into the soil of Leicestershire, all we have left are his bones, so we should st least attempt to keep all his remains in some proximity to each other.
But as I say, although I love York I haven't even ever visited Leicester so I really don't have an axe to grind.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another -  care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Colyngbourne - I agree completely with what you say.

What this whole situation has brought home to me loud & clear is that Ricardians are seriously divided, with those of us who feel that Richard's story is not yet over, and that his life should be celebrated with an interment in some place relevant to him, having no voice currently in the Richard III Society.

Likewise, the "Society" comes across as if it believes it has some monopoly on everything Ricardian; it is not particularly welcoming to those who may have been Ricardians for many years, but for various reasons have not been Society members.

What appears to be unseemly quarreling to some, appears to others to be an attempt to right a terrible wrong. It remains to be seen whether the Society will survive if it continues to ignore this deep divide. You need only look at the proliferation of FB pages to see that when only one point of view is allowed to be discussed, people (potential members, some new members & some old who are now seriously considering whether or not continuing membership is appropriate) will find another way of expressing their opinions & trying to effect change.

A clear impression created amongst those at a distance is that the Society has lost sight of its original mission advocating restoration of King Richard's reputation & is now more interested in studying his life & times in some neutral or even anti-Ricardian fashion.

A J

(A senior citizen who is learning to deal with FB because that is the way many interested younger people communicate these days. Doesn't mean I like it).

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Hi Alan,

" York wasn't a place of any particular importance in Richard's life so any claim to the contrary is at best dubious and at worst hypocritical." - I would say the majority of Ricardians, both academic and serious amateur, would disagree with you, and yes, they have done their reading.

"unless a grave could be found for him in place of historical significance or great honor like Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle" - York is a place of great honour and historical significance to him: the collegiate chantry of unprecedented size, the great ceremonies prior to his son's investiture (and those for John of Gloucester), being part of the York Corpus Christi Guild, proposing four MPs for York instead of the customary two, many gifts to the minster itself, York as Richard "fair city", to which he has a "homecommying"; frequent stays at the Augustinian friars to the degree that he was having apartments altered there. His cousin Archbishop Neville is buried in the Minster, also possibly his son. Even if it's not 100% certain this was his intended mausoleum, though many academics consider it to be the case, why is this location so unacceptable as a fitting place for Richard?


Other than re-interring his father and brother in Fotheringhay, Richard was not seriously connected "personally" to this place after the first few years of his life. Other than re-interring Henry VI in Windsor, I don't see any serious connection of Richard to Windsor either.

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I thought you were using it as an umbrella term, Hillary, which wouldn't be inappropriate. Don't quite get your analogy, though. Surely it would only work if Henry Tudor had murdered Richard and buried him in *his* back garden (which would probably be Brittany in this case)?

Anyway, no point in all of us, once again, rehearsing arguments over location. It's a lawyers' game now, and there's no going back from that.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Sorry Jonathan I meant Leicester, not them. Hadn't Leicester also applied to be City of Culture next year but Hull got it instead? This latest argument seems most obscure if I read it correctly. So if I'm a murderer and bury bodies in the garden of the house I own, I own them too do I?H (who is still only getting a few of these posts)

On Saturday, 30 November 2013, 9:08, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
   Hi Alan, " York wasn't a place of any particular importance in Richard's life so any claim to the contrary is at best dubious and at worst hypocritical." - I would say the majority of Ricardians, both academic and serious amateur, would disagree with you, and yes, they have done their reading.

"unless a grave could be found for him in place of historical significance or great honor like Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle" - York is a place of great honour and historical significance to him: the collegiate chantry of unprecedented size, the great ceremonies prior to his son's investiture (and those for John of Gloucester), being part of the York Corpus Christi Guild, proposing four MPs for York instead of the customary two, many gifts to the minster itself, York as Richard "fair city", to which he has a "homecommying"; frequent stays at the Augustinian friars to the degree that he was having apartments altered there. His cousin Archbishop Neville is buried in the Minster, also possibly his son.  Even if it's not 100% certain this was his intended mausoleum, though many academics consider it to be the case, why is this location so unacceptable as a fitting place for Richard?
 

Other than re-interring his father and brother in Fotheringhay, Richard was not seriously connected "personally" to this place after the first few years of his life. Other than re-interring Henry VI in Windsor, I don't see any serious connection of Richard to Windsor either.



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

That's just it  York wasn't a place of any particular importance in Richard's life so any claim to the contrary is at best dubious and at worst hypocritical.  If one was arguing for London, Windsor Castle, or Fotheringhay you might have something, but in the case of York this bid by his supposed family (a misleading claim given that a large percentage of the entire country is just as closely related) smacks of crass opportunism.    On the flip side law and custom is for any exhumed body of a known Christian to be reburied in the (reasonably) nearest available consecrated ground, which in this case is Leicester Cathedral.  So, unless a grave could be found for him in place of historical significance or great honor like Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle (both of which would need Her Majesty's permission) there is no justifiable legal or social argument for reburying him in any place save Leicester.    Sorry, but unless someone produces amazing evidence to the contrary (such as Richard's will) that's the simple truth of things.   Alan   From: colyngbourne Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:02 PM To: Subject: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned     I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another -  care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

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

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android  

I would like to say though, that any preference for place of burial shown here should not be construed as showing any lack of love, respect, admiration, care or interest in Richard III and his life and times.
The society was formed to rescue Richard's reputation from historical propaganda, and has done a good job in the face of initially some ridicule. Finding Richard's body was an enormous vindication of the excellent work that the society has done.
This is not the time for us to fracture in acrimony over something which is now in the hands of the lawyers and over which we have no control.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I thought you were using it as an umbrella term, Hillary, which wouldn't be inappropriate. Don't quite get your analogy, though. Surely it would only work if Henry Tudor had murdered Richard and buried him in *his* back garden (which would probably be Brittany in this case)?

Anyway, no point in all of us, once again, rehearsing arguments over location. It's a lawyers' game now, and there's no going back from that.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Sorry Jonathan I meant Leicester, not them. Hadn't Leicester also applied to be City of Culture next year but Hull got it instead? This latest argument seems most obscure if I read it correctly. So if I'm a murderer and bury bodies in the garden of the house I own, I own them too do I?H (who is still only getting a few of these posts)

On Saturday, 30 November 2013, 9:08, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
   Hi Alan, " York wasn't a place of any particular importance in Richard's life so any claim to the contrary is at best dubious and at worst hypocritical." - I would say the majority of Ricardians, both academic and serious amateur, would disagree with you, and yes, they have done their reading.

"unless a grave could be found for him in place of historical significance or great honor like Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle" - York is a place of great honour and historical significance to him: the collegiate chantry of unprecedented size, the great ceremonies prior to his son's investiture (and those for John of Gloucester), being part of the York Corpus Christi Guild, proposing four MPs for York instead of the customary two, many gifts to the minster itself, York as Richard "fair city", to which he has a "homecommying"; frequent stays at the Augustinian friars to the degree that he was having apartments altered there. His cousin Archbishop Neville is buried in the Minster, also possibly his son.  Even if it's not 100% certain this was his intended mausoleum, though many academics consider it to be the case, why is this location so unacceptable as a fitting place for Richard?
 

Other than re-interring his father and brother in Fotheringhay, Richard was not seriously connected "personally" to this place after the first few years of his life. Other than re-interring Henry VI in Windsor, I don't see any serious connection of Richard to Windsor either.



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

That's just it  York wasn't a place of any particular importance in Richard's life so any claim to the contrary is at best dubious and at worst hypocritical.  If one was arguing for London, Windsor Castle, or Fotheringhay you might have something, but in the case of York this bid by his supposed family (a misleading claim given that a large percentage of the entire country is just as closely related) smacks of crass opportunism.    On the flip side law and custom is for any exhumed body of a known Christian to be reburied in the (reasonably) nearest available consecrated ground, which in this case is Leicester Cathedral.  So, unless a grave could be found for him in place of historical significance or great honor like Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle (both of which would need Her Majesty's permission) there is no justifiable legal or social argument for reburying him in any place save Leicester.    Sorry, but unless someone produces amazing evidence to the contrary (such as Richard's will) that's the simple truth of things.   Alan   From: colyngbourne Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:02 PM To: Subject: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned     I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another -  care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

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

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly. Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android  

I'm sorry you feel that way, AJ. The Society has actually avoided getting embroiled in the controversy because whichever side they came down on would not suit all members.

Marie

Colyngbourne - I agree completely with what you say.

What this whole situation has brought home to me loud & clear is that Ricardians are seriously divided, with those of us who feel that Richard's story is not yet over, and that his life should be celebrated with an interment in some place relevant to him, having no voice currently in the Richard III Society.

Likewise, the "Society" comes across as if it believes it has some monopoly on everything Ricardian; it is not particularly welcoming to those who may have been Ricardians for many years, but for various reasons have not been Society members.

What appears to be unseemly quarreling to some, appears to others to be an attempt to right a terrible wrong. It remains to be seen whether the Society will survive if it continues to ignore this deep divide. You need only look at the proliferation of FB pages to see that when only one point of view is allowed to be discussed, people (potential members, some new members & some old who are now seriously considering whether or not continuing membership is appropriate) will find another way of expressing their opinions & trying to effect change.

A clear impression created amongst those at a distance is that the Society has lost sight of its original mission advocating restoration of King Richard's reputation & is now more interested in studying his life & times in some neutral or even anti-Ricardian fashion.

A J

(A senior citizen who is learning to deal with FB because that is the way many interested younger people communicate these days. Doesn't mean I like it).

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Sorry Hilary, This isn't my post you're responding to. Isn't Yahoo confusing now?

Marie

This is just my opinion, but if the Queen were to acknowledge Richard as anything but a murderous usurper,that stole the crown from the rightful King Edward V, she is tacitly acknowledging the fact that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, and as such, casts a shadow on the reigns of every monarch after Richard's death at Bosworth, including her own. By staying silent, she is not forced to take one side or another.

The City of Leicester wants him, not because they honored him in life or intend to in death, but as a magnificent tourist attraction. They want him for the money he'll generate for their local economy.

The University of Leicester wants perpetual access to his bones even after he is buried. They don't want to honor him; they have no emotional attachment or historical loyalty to him. They want to steal bits of him, use him as a research object into perpetuity, and further their careers by publishing papers with his name in the title.

If Leicester petitioned the king today, asking to bury him in their city, do you think he'd agree to be used as a sideshow attraction and an object of research a la The Elephant Man?

York and the Alliance want to bring him home to a place that welcomed him on multiple occasions in his lifetime, that celebrated his being king and where he stayed for three weeks after his coronation, where his son was made Prince of Wales, that mourned him after his death. They want to bring him home to a county where he chose to live and work for twelve years. Home to a city that celebrated his life, that worked with him and considered him their good lord while he was alive.

Richard wasn't Lord of the Midlands. He was Lord of the North and the only king from the north. He spent twelve years in Yorkshire by his own choice. Of necessity, Richard mustered his army in Leicester. His battered body was transported back there after his death. It's a location associated with his death, not his life.

Leicester wants the money he'll bring. I can't see that the Alliance wants anything but to bring him home to finally rest in peace in a county he considered home, and not where the Tydder threw him.

~Weds

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Well said, Weds.

The City of Leicester wants him, not because they honored him in life or intend to in death, but as a magnificent tourist attraction. They want him for the money he'll generate for their local economy.

The University of Leicester wants perpetual access to his bones even after he is buried. They don't want to honor him; they have no emotional attachment or historical loyalty to him. They want to steal bits of him, use him as a research object into perpetuity, and further their careers by publishing papers with his name in the title.

If Leicester petitioned the king today, asking to bury him in their city, do you think he'd agree to be used as a sideshow attraction and an object of research a la The Elephant Man?

York and the Alliance want to bring him home to a place that welcomed him on multiple occasions in his lifetime, that celebrated his being king and where he stayed for three weeks after his coronation, where his son was made Prince of Wales, that mourned him after his death. They want to bring him home to a county where he chose to live and work for twelve years. Home to a city that celebrated his life, that worked with him and considered him their good lord while he was alive.

Richard wasn't Lord of the Midlands. He was Lord of the North and the only king from the north. He spent twelve years in Yorkshire by his own choice. Of necessity, Richard mustered his army in Leicester. His battered body was transported back there after his death. It's a location associated with his death, not his life.

Leicester wants the money he'll bring. I can't see that the Alliance wants anything but to bring him home to finally rest in peace in a county he considered home, and not where the Tydder threw him.

~Weds

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Well said, Weds.

The City of Leicester wants him, not because they honored him in life or intend to in death, but as a magnificent tourist attraction. They want him for the money he'll generate for their local economy.

The University of Leicester wants perpetual access to his bones even after he is buried. They don't want to honor him; they have no emotional at tachment or historical loyalty to him. They want to steal bits of him, use him as a research object into perpetuity, and further their careers by publishing papers with his name in the title.

If Leicester petitioned the king today, asking to bury him in their city, do you think he'd agree to be used as a sideshow attraction and an object of research a la The Elephant Man?

York and the Alliance want to bring him home to a place that welcomed him on multiple occasions in his lifetime, that celebrated his being king and where he stayed for three weeks after his coronation, where his son was made Prince of Wales, that mourned him after his death. They want to bring him home to a county where he chose to live and work for twelve years. Home to a city that celebrated his life, that worked with him and considered him their good lord while he was alive.

Richard wasn't Lord of the Midlands. He was Lord of the North and the only king from the north. He spent twelve years in Yorkshire by his own choice. Of necessity, Richard mustered his army in Leicester. His battered body was transported back there after his death. It's a location associated with his death, not his life.

Leicester wants the money he'll bring. I can't see that the Alliance wants anything but to bring him home to finally rest in peace in a county he considered home, and not where the Tydder threw him.

~Weds

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewh ere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Henry Tudor knew that Elizabeth of York had a stronger claim than he did, regardless of legitimacy, since she was the daughter of an anointed king. That is why he waited two years to crown her as his queen, so that the people would acknowledge him as king without any influence from her. He wouldn't have wanted anyone to say that the only reason he was king was because he married the rightful queen...regardless of how true that statement was.

Heather

The City of Leicester wants him, not because they honored him in life or intend to in death, but as a magnificent tourist attraction. They want him for the money he'll generate for their local economy.

The University of Leicester wants perpetual access to his bones even after he is buried. They don't want to honor him; they have no emotional attachment or historical loyalty to him. They want to steal bits of him, use him as a research object into perpetuity, and further their careers by publishing papers with his name in the title.  ;

If Leicester petitioned the king today, asking to bury him in their city, do you think he'd agree to be used as a sideshow attraction and an object of research a la The Elephant Man?

York and the Alliance want to bring him home to a place that welcomed him on multiple occasions in his lifetime, that celebrated his being king and where he stayed for three weeks after his coronation, where his son wa s made Prince of Wales, that mourned him after his death. They want to bring him home to a county where he chose to live and work for twelve years. Home to a city that celebrated his life, that worked with him and considered him their good lord while he was alive.

Richard wasn't Lord of the Midlands. He was Lord of the North and the only king from the north. He spent twelve years in Yorkshire by his own choice. Of necessity, Richard mustered his army in Leicester. His battered body was transported back there after his death. It's a location associated with his death, not his life. 

Leicester wants the money he'll bring. I can't see that the Alliance wants anything but to bring him home to finally rest in peace in a county he considered home, and not where the Tydder threw him.

~Weds

 I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another -  care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, a nd has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Queen Matilda was Countess of Flanders in her own right and I believe the English Hanover kings were descended from her line, but it would be worth checking if there were also earlier ties to England in her bloodlines.

From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
  I would imagine they would have to acknowledge Henry VII kingship as by right of conquest, his queen may have united the bloodline, but it wasn't her that was in power.
After all what do we know about William the Conqueror's wife?

Jess
On Saturday, 30 November 2013, 16:55, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
   
wickedfae1980@...> wrote: This is just my opinion, but if the Queen were to acknowledge Richard as anything but a murderous usurper,that stole the crown from the rightful King Edward V, she is tacitly acknowledging the fact that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, and as such, casts a shadow on the reigns of every monarch after Richard's death at Bosworth, including her own. By staying silent, she is not forced to take one side or another. Carol responds: I don't know what to call you since you didn't sign your post and 52cc415db2 doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. Not only does she believe the Tanner-and-Wright "proof" of Richard's guilt, but to believe otherwise would be to doubt her own lines legitimacy--unless they go back to Henry's own version of his claim, king by right of conquest, but even that requires them to see Richard as a tyrant and usurper. They can't acknowledge that their seemingly unquestionable right to the throne of England (despite its reduction to a ceremonial role) is a mere accident of history. Had Henry Tudor died at Bosworth, they wouldn't exist. Carol

Well said, Weds.

The City of Leicester wants him, not because they honored him in life or intend to in death, but as a magnificent tourist attraction. They want him for the money he'll generate for their local economy.

The University of Leicester wants perpetual access to his bones even after he is buried. They don't want to honor him; they have no emotional attachment or historical loyalty to him. They want to steal bits of him, use him as a research object into perpetuity, and further their careers by publishing papers with his name in the title.

If Leicester petitioned the king today, asking to bury him in their city, do you think he'd agree to be used as a sideshow attraction and an object of research a la The Elephant Man?

York and the Alliance want to bring him home to a place that welcomed him on multiple occasions in his lifetime, that celebrated his being king and where he stayed for three weeks after his coronation, where his son was made Prince of Wales, that mourned him after his death. They want to bring him home to a county where he chose to live and work for twelve years. Home to a city that celebrated his life, that worked with him and considered him their good lord while he was alive.

Richard wasn't Lord of the Midlands. He was Lord of the North and the only king from the north. He spent twelve years in Yorkshire by his own choice. Of necessity, Richard mustered his army in Leicester. His battered body was transported back there after his death. It's a location associated with his death, not his life.

Leicester wants the money he'll bring. I can't see that the Alliance wants anything but to bring him home to finally rest in peace in a county he considered home, and not where the Tydder threw him.

~Weds

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

Quite! Which makes my point. The royal family have nothing to lose by showing some reverence for Richard III.
Henry VII was king by right of conquest and only aided in his bloodline by his wife's genetic heritage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Sound like she had more right to the throne than William.

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 6:24 PM
Subject: Re : Re: RE: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
  Yes she was - about 7 generations back to Alfred. She was also descended from Charlemagne and Byzantine emperors... Regards David From: Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 10:44:53 PM   Queen Matilda was Countess of Flanders in her own right and I believe the English Hanover kings were descended from her line, but it would be worth checking if there were also earlier ties to England in her bloodlines.
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
  I would imagine they would have to acknowledge Henry VII kingship as by right of conquest, his queen may have united the bloodline, but it wasn't her that was in power.
After all what do we know about William the Conqueror's wife?

Jess
On Saturday, 30 November 2013, 16:55, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
    wickedfae1980@...> wrote: This is just my opinion, but if the Queen were to acknowledge Richard as anything but a murderous usurper,that stole the crown from the rightful King Edward V, she is tacitly acknowledging the fact that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, and as such, casts a shadow on the reigns of every monarch after Richard's death at Bosworth, including her own. By staying silent, she is not forced to take one side or another. Carol responds: I don't know what to call you since you didn't sign your post and 52cc415db2 doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. Not only does she believe the Tanner-and-Wright "proof" of Richard's guilt, but to believe otherwise would be to doubt her own lines legitimacy--unless they go back to Henry's own version of his claim, king by right of conquest, but even that requires them to see Richard as a tyrant and usurper. They can't acknowledge that their seemingly unquestionable right to the throne of England (despite its reduction to a ceremonial role) is a mere accident of history. Had Henry Tudor died at Bosworth, they wouldn't exist. Carol

Well said Marie.

I'm sorry you feel that way, AJ. The Society has actually avoided getting embroiled in the controversy because whichever side they came down on would not suit all members.

Marie

Colyngbourne - I agree completely with what you say.

What this whole situation has brought home to me loud & clear is that Ricardians are seriously divided, with those of us who feel that Richard's story is not yet over, and that his life should be celebrated with an interment in some place relevant to him, having no voice currently in the Richard III Society.

Likewise, the "Society" comes across as if it believes it has some monopoly on everything Ricardian; it is not particularly welcoming to those who may have been Ricardians for many years, but for various reasons have not been Society members.

What appears to be unseemly quarreling to some, appears to others to be an attempt to right a terrible wrong. It remains to be seen whether the Society will survive if it continues to ignore this deep divide. You need only look at the proliferation of FB pages to see that when only one point of view is allowed to be discussed, people (potential members, some new members & some old who are now seriously considering whether or not continuing membership is appropriate) will find another way of expressing their opinions & trying to effect change.

A clear impression created amongst those at a distance is that the Society has lost sight of its original mission advocating restoration of King Richard's reputation & is now more interested in studying his life & times in some neutral or even anti-Ricardian fashion.

A J

(A senior citizen who is learning to deal with FB because that is the way many interested younger people communicate these days. Doesn't mean I like it).

I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.

I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.

Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.

The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.

Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.

Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.

Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.

I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.

However, Christine, where were they when we have all been battling for Richard for decades? It seems to me that they have only come forward now because it will put them in the limelight. This battle has been going on for a long while and people like Philippa, JAH and Phil Stone and the Society are responsible for Richard being found.

Absolutely Mary. We must all support the society and its excellent work in this discovery.
After all, it would be very naive to think that the City of York would not exploit Richard to make money.
The support we give to Richard is what is important.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

However, Christine, where were they when we have all been battling for Richard for decades? It seems to me that they have only come forward now because it will put them in the limelight. This battle has been going on for a long while and people like Philippa, JAH and Phil Stone and the Society are responsible for Richard being found. 

Henry Tudor knew that Elizabeth of York had a stronger claim than he did, regardless of legitimacy, since she was the daughter of an anointed king. That is why he waited two years to crown her as his queen, so that the people would acknowledge him as king without any influence from her. He wouldn't have wanted anyone to say that the only reason he was king was because he married the rightful queen...regardless of how true that statement was.

Because we do care..........very much.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I am sick and tired of the view that unless one supports a reburial in York, somehow one is disloyal to Richard or does not care about Richard.
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

  Totally agree with colyngbourne on this matter and I am sick and tired
of certain people having a go at the PA God Bless them they at least are standing up for Richard.
Loyaulte me Lie, have we forgotten this motto people.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I guess we simply disagree that where a person happens to die is of significance to that person. If I died in Stamford, that wouldn't make Stamford a significant place to me. Nor would it be where my relatives would have chosen to bury me. And no, I don't count Tudor as a relevant relative of Richard's in this case. He had Richard buried in Leicester to make him disappear, not to honour him. The right place for Richard then and now is somewhere other than where Tudor put him - town-wise, not just grave-wise.
>
> I do believe we all - whether preferring one place or another - care very much about his dignity but I personally see that as being fulfilled by a location being chosen that fits with and speaks of Richard's life, not his death, and with full open consultation: speed is not what will deliver any dignified result - it takes care and time to work out the right place for a King of England. But obviously no-one wants the case being protracted over several years either. I don't think that will be the case either.
>
>
> ---In , <janjovian@> wrote:
>
> Leicester may have not been as concerned as York with Richard's life, but it was of major concern with his death, and has been his place of burial for 500 years.
> As far as I am concerned, and I have no connection with either York or Leicester, this does give Leicester a strong say in matters concerning his reburial.
> Having said which, I do hope for the sake of his dignity this matter is settled quickly.
> Jess
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
> Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 9:54:19 PM
>
>
> The issue is a legal matter - and HM cannot interfere or over-rule the legislation and judiciary of her own country, and so will not intervene, especially in a legal case which is primarily about "consultation" and the lack of it.
>
>
> The most recent emailing from the Society - Annette Carson's court report - is interesting reading.
>
> Why is Richard still in the uni? Because the uni reneged on an agreement with PL that the remains be taken to a place of sanctity.
>
> Why some mention of the lay-out of remains in the coffin? Because it seems evident that the implied alternative is that the remains be placed in a sterile ossuary, from which they could be retrieved at a later date for further scientific examination. There is no other explanation I can think of. This ossuary would presumably be contained within an actual coffin but the remains would be scientifically "pure" and intact and sterile for further "use". Is this acceptable? No.
>
> Whether or not anyone here considers York to be the most valid place of re-interment, it is at least a place connected with RIchard's life, one which he knew well and appreciated enough to spend significant moments of his life there, and to build an unprecedently huge collegiate chantry there whilst he was king, not whilst he was living in the north. Richard spent minimal days of his life in Leicester and had no special relationship with the town, and would have no connection with St Martin's, much of which has been rebuilt and transformed since his time. It makes little sense in terms of RIchard's life to inter him in a place he neither knew or spent time in, or had affection for, or would even recognise.
>
> I don't see what is so hard about appreciating those things for Richard's re-interment, whilst acknowledging that the Uni and ULAS did a sterling job with the scientific and archaeological elements. Not by keeping his remains under a broken kettle though, or breaking the WIP agreement with PL about who would be custodian of the remains.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> I see where your coming from....but isn't that a teeny bit dishonest...? I'm not saying that she let her private opinion on this subject be made public...assuming she has one...and I think we all know that her Maj is not going to change the habits of a lifetime at this juncture of her life and give out an opinion...but a quite word in one of her aide's/ministers ears...please ensure that this fiasco is drawn to a swift close and this poor man laid to rest once more. Of course it has all gone too far now and the chance missed...I can see this carrying on for years...Eileen
> --- In @, <wickedfae1980@> wrote:
> >
> > This is just my opinion, but if the Queen were to acknowledge Richard as anything but a murderous usurper,that stole the crown from the rightful King Edward V, she is tacitly acknowledging the fact that Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, and as such, casts a shadow on the reigns of every monarch after Richard's death at Bosworth, including her own. By staying silent, she is not forced to take one side or another.
> >
> >
> > ---In , <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe a few too many Gin and Tonics. I can see that the Royal Family might want to enter the fray. However, they could simply say, this was a crowned king. May he be reinterred with dignity and solemnity. They do not have to comment on anything, the princes, the War of Roses, the urn, nada. Just say something to get this behind us.
> > And who or what makes up the Plantagenet Alliance? How are they now a part of this circus?
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2013, at 12:29 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@ mailto:eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree Eileen. It seems the least they could do is acknowledge the remains, and favor a dignified repose. I thought they were over their PR gaffes. I suppose not.
> >
> > It's rather dinosaurish isn't it....? Eileen
> > >
> > > On Nov 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@<mailto:eileenbates147@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's the royal family's stance or should I say, non-stance, here I find increasingly hard to understand. King Richard was a member of the Royal Family. A different house but nevertheless he was an annointed King and a very important part of this country's rich tapestry of history, How extraordinary that the Queen therefore, takes such a firm stance in insisting that the bones in the urn are not to be disturbed and yet these remains, which have been proven to be a member of the Royal Family are treated as if, quite frankly, she does not really care that much about at all...if anything.
> > >
> > > The Royal Family have really come down in my estimation because of this...not for the first time I must say...but how wonderful if they had stepped in here.
> > >
> > > I have a mental picture of them...apologies for me wearing my cynical hat here..and I may well be doing them a disservice ...gin and tonics in hand, corgis around feet, chortling as they survey the circus that this situation
> > > has turned into.
> > > Eileen
> > > In mailto:<mailto: mailto:>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with what everyone's said. Although I wouldn't actually accuse the Plantagenet Alliance of greed. To be fair to them, I'm sure they genuinely think they're doing the right thing. But that doesn't mitigate the culpable, damaging stupidity of their actions. We're probably looking at reinterment in 2015 at the earliest now. By which time, the public response is likely to be somewhere between ennui at how long all this has gone on and anger at all the money that's been wasted.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Absolutely agree Jessie and Pamela.

Because we do care..........very much.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

How does that square with the fact that most of us would like to see a further examination of the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey?
It is a difficult stance to take that we would like one set of bones 're examined in the light of further scientific discoveries, but not another.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 I didn't know that. To be honest, it's not the ossuary per se that I object to but the idea that they might want to dig Richard up again for further examination.

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2/12/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: RE: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
To:
Date: Monday, 2 December, 2013, 1:16



Colyngbourne wrote:" Re the remains - I
have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester
is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary,
not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be
justified  - esp. considering this is a King of England
and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave -
is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile
in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future
examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by
the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated
that the possibility of future access to the remains is
"extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it
outright. I think this is
unacceptable." Marie
replies:Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI
reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in
a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done,
the bones would have rattled around and
end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard
himself thought that was good enough for an anointed
king.......


---In ,
<[email protected]> wrote:

Why should it be
presumed that the PA were not Ricardians prior to Feb 4th?
Not all Ricardians are members of the Society - nor do they
have to be - and nor did most of us (in fact 99.9% of us)
engage in what was happening until the remains were actually
found. Most of us didn't even realise the dig was
happening until six weeks before it began, and even then it
was still coming across as a wild-goose chase. I don't
think it's reasonably to judge the PA for not being
vocal Ricardians or hunting out Richard's remains
themselves. Only the Looking for Richard project did that -
we didn't do it either - and pretty much everyone, incl
uding ULAS and the Uni, did not think that Richard would be
found. Most people  - including ULAS - thought Richard
was in the river: including many many Ricardians, and that
is quite understandable. ULAS - even after finding a leg
bone - stated openly in their letter of application for an
exhumation licence, that they still thought there was a good
chance that Richard was in the river. So why should anyone
else have thought differently and be now held to accusation
for somehow not doing more? In the autumn after the find,
still the public didn't know it was Richard, until the
press conference on 4th Feb - it appears that LCC knew it
was Richard because as early as 3rd Oct they were planning
to buy the old grammar school and turn it into a Richard III
centre, but the rest of the public was told to wait and see.
And so they did - including the PA.

Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the
Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be
re-interred
in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason
this can be justified  - esp. considering this is a
King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too
small grave - is that the remains have to be kept
scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for
possible future examination. This would seem to chime with
comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin
who have stated that the possibility of future access to the
remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not
deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable.




---In
,
<kathryng56@...> wrote:

My
views regarding the cities of Leicester and York and the
tourism/money / Richard 111's reburial issues are

a)people will go and spend whilst visiting the new
Leicester Museum which tells the story regarding the recent
finds etc.They can then spend or donate and visit the
Cathedral where his remains will be.(or vice versa)

or

b)people will go and spend when visiting the Leicester
Museum and then visit(or vice versa) York and its
Cathedral/Minster with Richard 111's remains within it
spending or making donations etc............ I am assuming
the money raised in/at the cathedrals will be to maintain
them etc.....I think Richard 111 would have approved about
the donations.

c)When he is reburied(sorry if its the wrong term) there
will have to be something in the coffin to keep the bones in
place surely.

d)We would all like this ressolved as soon as possible and
with dignity.I don't think the PA are jumping on the
bandwagon I think they are trying to make sure that every
angle is covered.Because,I hope,we will only get one chance
to do this properly for Richard 111.

I have been a fan /follower of Richard 111 since my youth
although I have only been visiting your Richard 111 Society
facebook and forum for a couple of months.It's been
wonderful reading so much research and information.

Kathryn






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

>

> Absolutely Mary. We must all support the society and
its excellent work in this discovery.

> After all, it would be very naive to think that the
City of York would not exploit Richard to make money.

> The support we give to Richard is what is important.

>

> Jess

>

> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

>

I am not suggesting that they dig people up every few years either. In fact I find that quite abhorrent, but I can understand the "never say never" approach taken by the Dean of Leicester in the light of this.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

My objection is that by the time of the burial there will have plenty of time to examine Richard's bones so I see no reason to dig them up again. It's also been done using modern scientific methods and I can't imagine they could find out anything more of "real" relevance, no matter how much more advanced science became.

The bones in the urn however "could" provide a lot more info using modern scientific techniques. That for me is the main difference. I'm not suggesting they should keep digging people up every few years, only if something worthwhile could be learned.
 

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2/12/13, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: RE: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>, "ferrymansdaughter@..." <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Date: Monday, 2 December, 2013, 10:58



How does that square with the fact that most
of us would like to see a further examination of the bones
in the urn in Westminster Abbey?

It is a difficult stance to take that we would like one set
of bones 're examined in the light of further scientific
discoveries, but not another.
Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android








From:

liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...>;



To:


<>;




Subject:

Re:
RE: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned



Sent:

Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:50:21 AM




 I didn't know that. To be honest, it's not the
ossuary per se that I object to but the idea that they might
want to dig Richard up again for further examination.



Liz

Colyngbourne wrote

" That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. "

Marie replies:

It's difficult for me to know what to think, partly because I don't know your source of information, and whether the ossuary is really being planned with the intention of frequently whipping the bones out again for further poking about.

I don't feel as strongly as you do about the bones being laid out anatomically correctly, and I find the suspicions about the reasons for an ossuary a bit hard to fathom. As a totally ignorant onlooker, I would have thought the bones would be *easier* to access laid out directly in the coffin rather than in a second sealed box inside the coffin. As for sterile conditions, again if the bones were laid out on the same sort of surface that has been used at the Uni, surely that would be sterile, and piling them into an ossuary doesn't sound like the way to store bones you wish to protect from damage for future study. Is it possible this story has got out of proportion and that unworthy motives are being wrongly attributed to the cathedral authorities?

My own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Marie

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

Well said colynbourn. I agree completely. There seems to be a tendency to ridicule PA to make one look more serious. At lease PA is trying, and succeeding to a degree, to get Richard a proper burial in a place that is more likely he would have chosen himself. I want people who visit Richard's tomb to celebrate and understand his life story, his work, his military and legislative achievements, not just the controversy relating to the princes in the tower or his tragic death.

hli4

Spot on Liz.

There are other sources, but at a talk the other week, John Ashdown-Hill stated that regarding the arrangements for re-interment, How will Richard's body be prepared for burial? - he was absolutely appalled at what was being proposed. This was further mentioned and clarified in a Look North interview just prior to the Nov 26th court date.

Bones laid in memory foam would be contaminated - they would need to be in a vacuum-state hermetically-sealed unit, as microbes in the air can affect the status of remains.

The coffin would be under the ground (another JAH objection), and the proposed block on top is merely lumpen decoration - and in my opinion, designedly deliberately unadorned so that in future years it would be removeable (for the convenience of the church) and simply the rose on the floor with its minimal references (and not even a Yorkist rose at that), be left as the sole memorial to the king.

Colyngbourne wrote

" That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. "

Marie replies:

It's difficult for me to know what to think, partly because I don't know your source of information, and whether the ossuary is really being planned with the intention of frequently whipping the bones out again for further poking about.

I don't feel as strongly as you do about the bones being laid out anatomically correctly, and I find the suspicions about the reasons for an ossuary a bit hard to fathom. As a totally ignorant onlooker, I would have thought the bones would be *easier* to access laid out directly in the coffin rather than in a second sealed box inside the coffin. As for sterile conditions, again if the bones were laid out on the same sort of surface that has been used at the Uni, surely that would be sterile, and piling them into an ossuary doesn't sound like the way to store bones you wish to protect from damage for future study. Is it possible this story has got out of proportion and that unworthy motives are being wrongly attributed to the cathedral authorities?

My own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Marie

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

Marie wrote:

My own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Thank you Marie, for your sensible approach that stands out in this heated, highly emotional discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly with your reasoning.

I don't see that it is preferable for the bones to lie on plastic foam than be kept in an ossuary, nor that

the wish to make it easier for future scientist to gain access to the bones is detestable.

And I think, where ever the bones will be laid to rest, neither Leicester nor York is will to do so

in an undignified way.

By the way, in my opinion no one and nothing can harm Richard's dignity as man and King!

Eva

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Colyngbourne wrote

" That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. "

Marie replies:

It's difficult for me to know what to think, partly because I don't know your source of information, and whether the ossuary is really being planned with the intention of frequently whipping the bones out again for further poking about.

I don't feel as strongly as you do about the bones being laid out anatomically correctly, and I find the suspicions about the reasons for an ossuary a bit hard to fathom. As a totally ignorant onlooker, I would have thought the bones would be *easier* to access laid out directly in the coffin rather than in a second sealed box inside the coffin. As for sterile conditions, again if the bones were laid out on the same sort of surface that has been used at the Uni, surely that would be sterile, and piling them into an ossuary doesn't sound like the way to store bones you wish to protect from damage for future study. Is it possible this story has got out of proportion and that unworthy motives are being wrongly attributed to the cathedral authorities?

My own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Marie

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

Well said colynbourn. I agree completely. There seems to be a tendency to ridicule PA to make one look more serious. At lease PA is trying, and succeeding to a degree, to get Richard a proper burial in a place that is more likely he would have chosen himself. I want people who visit Richard's tomb to celebrate and understand his life story, his work, his military and legislative achievements, not just the controversy relating to the princes in the tower or his tragic death.

hli4

"I want people who visit Richard's tomb to celebrate and understand his life story, his work, his military and legislative achievements, not just the controversy relating to the princes in the tower or his tragic death."

Sorry if I am being obtuse, but isn't that what we all want?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Thank you both for your lovely messages .That's exactly the right sentiment entirely.Well done.
Kathryn

--- In , <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> Well said colynbourn. I agree completely. There seems to be a tendency to ridicule PA to make one look more serious. At lease PA is trying, and succeeding to a degree, to get Richard a proper burial in a place that is more likely he would have chosen himself. I want people who visit Richard's tomb to celebrate and understand his life story, his work, his military and legislative achievements, not just the controversy relating to the princes in the tower or his tragic death.
>
>
> hli4
>
>
>
> ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why should it be presumed that the PA were not Ricardians prior to Feb 4th? Not all Ricardians are members of the Society - nor do they have to be - and nor did most of us (in fact 99.9% of us) engage in what was happening until the remains were actually found. Most of us didn't even realise the dig was happening until six weeks before it began, and even then it was still coming across as a wild-goose chase. I don't think it's reasonably to judge the PA for not being vocal Ricardians or hunting out Richard's remains themselves. Only the Looking for Richard project did that - we didn't do it either - and pretty much everyone, including ULAS and the Uni, did not think that Richard would be found. Most people - including ULAS - thought Richard was in the river: including many many Ricardians, and that is quite understandable. ULAS - even after finding a leg bone - stated openly in their letter of application for an exhumation licence, that they still thought there was a good chance that Richard was in the river. So why should anyone else have thought differently and be now held to accusation for somehow not doing more? In the autumn after the find, still the public didn't know it was Richard, until the press conference on 4th Feb - it appears that LCC knew it was Richard because as early as 3rd Oct they were planning to buy the old grammar school and turn it into a Richard III centre, but the rest of the public was told to wait and see. And so they did - including the PA.
>
> Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable.
>
>
>
>
> ---In , <kathryng56@> wrote:
>
> My views regarding the cities of Leicester and York and the tourism/money / Richard 111's reburial issues are
> a)people will go and spend whilst visiting the new Leicester Museum which tells the story regarding the recent finds etc.They can then spend or donate and visit the Cathedral where his remains will be.(or vice versa)
> or
> b)people will go and spend when visiting the Leicester Museum and then visit(or vice versa) York and its Cathedral/Minster with Richard 111's remains within it spending or making donations etc............ I am assuming the money raised in/at the cathedrals will be to maintain them etc.....I think Richard 111 would have approved about the donations.
> c)When he is reburied(sorry if its the wrong term) there will have to be something in the coffin to keep the bones in place surely.
> d)We would all like this ressolved as soon as possible and with dignity.I don't think the PA are jumping on the bandwagon I think they are trying to make sure that every angle is covered.Because,I hope,we will only get one chance to do this properly for Richard 111.
> I have been a fan /follower of Richard 111 since my youth although I have only been visiting your Richard 111 Society facebook and forum for a couple of months.It's been wonderful reading so much research and information.
> Kathryn
>
>
> --- In mailto:, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely Mary. We must all support the society and its excellent work in this discovery.
> > After all, it would be very naive to think that the City of York would not exploit Richard to make money.
> > The support we give to Richard is what is important.
> >
> > Jess
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> >
>

There are other sources, but at a talk the other week, John Ashdown-Hill stated that regarding the arrangements for re-interment, How will Richard's body be prepared for burial? - he was absolutely appalled at what was being proposed. This was further mentioned and clarified in a Look North interview just prior to the Nov 26th court date.

Bones laid in memory foam would be contaminated - they would need to be in a vacuum-state hermetically-sealed unit, as microbes in the air can affect the status of remains.

The coffin would be under the ground (another JAH objection), and the proposed block on top is merely lumpen decoration - and in my opinion, designedly deliberately unadorned so that in future years it would be removeable (for the convenience of the church) and simply the rose on the floor with its minimal references (and not even a Yorkist rose at that), be left as the sole memorial to the king.

Colyngbourne wrote

" That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. "

Marie replies:

It's difficult for me to know what to think, partly because I don't know your source of information, and whether the ossuary is really being planned with the intention of frequently whipping the bones out again for further poking about.

I don't feel as strongly as you do about the bones being laid out anatomically correctly, and I find the suspicions about the reasons for an ossuary a bit hard to fathom. As a totally ignorant onlooker, I would have thought the bones would be *easier* to access laid out directly in the coffin rather than in a second sealed box inside the coffin. As for sterile conditions, again if the bones were laid out on the same sort of surface that has been used at the Uni, surely that would be sterile, and piling them into an ossuary doesn't sound like the way to store bones you wish to protect from damage for future study. Is it possible this story has got out of proportion and that unworthy motives are being wrongly attributed to the cathedral authorities?

My own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Marie

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

Unpicking this, if the bones have to be sealed for their better preservation, then that seems the right thing to do, unless another form of more anatomically natural burial that would be as good can be found.
As far as being buried underground is concerned, are they perhaps worried, because of the present controversy, about grave robbers?
Unfortunately I am not joking, security could be a big factor.

In sorrow,

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

 There are other sources, but at a talk the other week, John Ashdown-Hill stated that regarding the arrangements for re-interment, How will Richard's body be prepared for burial? - he was absolutely appalled at what was being proposed. This was further mentioned and clarified in a Look North interview just prior to the Nov 26th court date.

Bones laid in memory foam would be contaminated - they would need to be in a vacuum-state hermetically-sealed unit, as microbes in the air can affect the status of remains.

The coffin would be under the ground (another JAH objection), and the proposed block on top is merely lumpen decoration - and in my opinion, designedly  deliberately unadorned so that in future years it would be removeable (for the convenience of the church) and simply the rose on the floor with its minimal references (and not even a Yorkist rose at that), be left as the sole memorial to the king.

Colyngbourne wrote

" That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. "

Marie replies:

It's difficult for me to know what to think, partly because I don't know your source of information, and whether the ossuary is really being planned with the intention of frequently whipping the bones out again for further poking about.

I don't feel as strongly as you do about the bones being laid out anatomically correctly, and I find the suspicions about the reasons for an ossuary a bit hard to fathom. As a totally ignorant onlooker, I would have thought the bones would be *easier* to access laid out directly in the coffin rather than in a second sealed box inside the coffin. As for sterile conditions, again if the bones were laid out on the same sort of surface that has been used at the Uni, surely that would be sterile, and piling them into an ossuary doesn't sound like the way to store bones you wish to protect from damage for future study. Is it possible this story has got out of proportion and that unworthy motives are being wrongly attributed to the cathedral authorities?

My  own position on future examination is that I would have no objection if it were carried out at some unforeseeable time in order to gather evidence from a ground-breaking new technique. After all, we are all in favour of re-examination of the bones found in the Tower although Tanner and Wright regarded their techniques as up-to-the-minute and their conclusions as definitive, and that is the very reason that re-examination has always been refused: ie they had been disturbed once and that was enough. At all periods since the scientific revolution ordinary people have believed that their own era pretty much had everything sorted, and always we look back on even the recent past in amazement at the holes in understanding.

So although I can't imagine what it would be, I accept that there could in theory be scientific breakthroughs that could at some point make a re-examination of Richard's remains the right thing to do, but there's certainly no excuse for casual or repeated disinterment.

Also, I take it the coffin will be in the tomb, so there would be no question of "digging him up again".

Marie

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination. 

Colyngbourne wrote:

" Re the remains - I have read from a definite source that the Dean of Leicester is insisting that the remains be re-interred in an ossuary, not laid out anatomically. The only reason this can be justified  - esp. considering this is a King of England and a man whose original burial was in a too small grave - is that the remains have to be kept scientifically sterile in a box, so they can be accessed for possible future examination. This would seem to chime with comments made by the Leicester Cathedral Facebook page admin who have stated that the possibility of future access to the remains is "extremely unlikely" but who would not deny it outright. I think this is unacceptable."

Marie replies:

Are you aware that, when Richard had Henry VI reinterred at Windsor, the bones were actually contained in a box inside the coffin? If that hadn't been done, the bones would have rattled around and end up in a big jumble when the coffin was moved. If Richard himself thought that was good enough for an anointed king.......

Colyngbourne wrote:

"There are other sources, but at a talk the other week, John Ashdown-Hill stated that regarding the arrangements for re-interment, How will Richard's body be prepared for burial? - he was absolutely appalled at what was being proposed. This was further mentioned and clarified in a Look North interview just prior to the Nov 26th court date.
Bones laid in memory foam would be contaminated - they would need to be in a vacuum-state hermetically-sealed unit, as microbes in the air can affect the status of remains.
The coffin would be under the ground (another JAH objection), and the proposed block on top is merely lumpen decoration - and in my opinion, designedly deliberately unadorned so that in future years it would be removeable (for the convenience of the church) and simply the rose on the floor with its minimal references (and not even a Yorkist rose at that), be left as the sole memorial to the king."

Marie replies,

I'm not happy about the body being placed underground again, and I think Leicester's tomb thing is hideous - like a large slab of nougat. But if he does go back underground, perhaps a hermetically sealed ossuary would be preferable as it would give the bones greater protection. One of my problems with Leicester Cathedral, although it is where I suspect the remains will end up, is that it is very small and so a grudging attitude towards space for the tomb is almost inevitable; the current arrangements are an improvement on what Leic. Cath. originally planned, which was just a flat floor slab, although from what you say it is likely to end up as just that. But then York Minster is very crowded and might not take a better view. Does the PA know what York Minster would offer? Would the Minster be happy to accept the original tomb design, for instance?

Not that we have any influence at all over where, or how, Richard's remains end up.

I'm not sure that Leicester Cathedral would want to move the stone from the tomb. I would imagine that if they do get awarded the honour of a kings burial they would think that all their Christmas's had come at once!

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Colyngbourne wrote:

"There are other sources, but at a talk the other week, John Ashdown-Hill stated that regarding the arrangements for re-interment, How will Richard's body be prepared for burial? - he was absolutely appalled at what was being proposed. This was further mentioned and clarified in a Look North interview just prior to the Nov 26th court date.
Bones laid in memory foam would be contaminated - they would need to be in a vacuum-state hermetically-sealed unit, as microbes in the air can affect the status of remains.
The coffin would be under the ground (another JAH objection), and the proposed block on top is merely lumpen decoration - and in my opinion, designedly  deliberately unadorned so that in future years it would be removeable (for the convenience of the church) and simply the rose on the floor with its minimal references (and not even a Yorkist rose at that), be left as the sole memorial to the king."

Marie replies,

I'm not happy about the body being placed underground again, and I think Leicester's tomb thing is hideous - like a large slab of nougat. But if he does go back underground, perhaps a hermetically sealed ossuary would be preferable  as it would give the bones greater protection.  One of my problems with Leicester Cathedral, although it is where I suspect the remains will end up, is that it is very small and so a grudging attitude towards space for the tomb is almost inevitable; the current arrangements are an improvement on what Leic. Cath. originally planned, which was just a flat floor slab, although from what you say it is likely to end up as just that. But then York Minster is very crowded and might not take a better view. Does the PA know what York Minster would offer? Would the Minster be happy to accept the original tomb design, for instance?

Not that we have any influence at all over where, or how, Richard's remains end up.

That may be true, Marie. But we are not in 1483. Now we have the means to lay out the remains anatomically without them rattling around - and this would seem to be symbolically important, I would argue, since Richard was squashed into a grave the first time around. And the box is clearly not being suggested as a means of stopping the remains rolling around - it is being "insisted upon" - there is no need to insist upon a box if it's for simple bone-rattling convenience: it's not beyond the wit of people in the C21st to line the coffin with the same context-foam in which the remains were laid out in the documentary. The box is for the sterile preservation of the remains which would make them fit for re-examination.

Carol responds:

I wouldn't rule out that the box is for the protection of the bones. As I understand it, a procession to York was ruled out because it would damage the skeleton. Moreover, if someone like Jo Appleby lays out the bones, she will undoubtedly emphasize the scoliosis, and since the skeleton is no longer articulated, it seems pointless to lay it out close to the way it appeared in life--as if that were possible in two dimensions, anyway.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I do wish they'd get on with it and allow his bones, boxed or coffined, to rest in peace.

It saddens me that this debate divides Ricardians, especially since we can do so little about it. I encourage those who care where and how he is buried to write to the proper authorities rather than debating the issue in this forum. As for me, all I want for him is a proper ceremony and a proper tomb--the sooner, the better.

Carol

I seem to recall in York Minster there was an honoury free standing stone tomb in remembrance of Richard 111 in close proximity to the altar,on the left side facing.I may be wrong it was a few years ago.
Kathryn

--- In , "43118@..." <43118@...> wrote:
>
> Has York Minster even offered anything at all should he be buried there? I've
> not seen or heard anything. Surprisingly though, for a Minster of that size
> there's very few important tombs or monuments in there - most that are seem to
> be previous abbots. I hope he ends up in York, but I don't have a problem with
> Leicester - at least they have reorganised the cathedral interior to
> accommodate him in his own space, which is how it should be! Unfortunately I
> can't see York doing that.
>
>
>
> Sharon
>

I love York and the Minster is beautiful, and yet my preference has to be Leicester.
(Although I will visit wherever he is laid to rest)
I don't know Leicester at all, but it is where Richard has lain for 500 years, so the protocol of reburying a body as close as possible from where it has been disintered appeals to me. The rest of his body, what made Richard, Richard, his flesh and organs have already become part of Leicester whether we like that or not. If we now 're-inter his skeleton somewhere else then we are, in effect, splitting his remains in two.
Leicester, and the university have done a lot of the work, even if occasionally not in quite the way we would have wanted, and the cathedral are at least trying to find a suitable space. Richard will be a star in Leicester, but one of many wonders in York.
Also the rest of the Bosworth story, and the amazing search and finding of his body by the society has its roots in Leicester.
It probably isn't the place Richard would have chosen to be buried, which I suspect would be in Westminster Abbey with Anne, but we are where we are and that changes things, at least for me.
One other factor which is important in the dispersal of knowledge of Richard, is that Leicester Cathedral are not intending to charge to see the tomb, whereas York Minster is quite expensive, although well worth it.
It seems to me. that the whole story can be told better if his remains and the visitor centre are in close proximity to each other.
That is the way I feel, although I completely respect the views of others.
I do know that what we all want is an end to the wrangling and a dignified and respectful reburial organised ad quickly as possible.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Theres also the Richard III museum which i have visited many times and purchased the latest books. The best time was when they had a poll on who killed the princes. Tony blair won. The minster does have steep charges like everywhere in yok but i cant help wanting him returned home. He was our lord of the north and loved the area. Did he love Leicester. I doubt it somehoe. Coral

I seem to recall in York Minster there was an honoury free standing stone tomb in remembrance of Richard 111 in close proximity to the altar,on the left side facing.I may be wrong it was a few years ago.
Kathryn

--- In , "43118@..." <43118@...> wrote:
>
> Has York Minster even offered anything at all should he be buried there? I've
> not seen or heard anything. Surprisingly though, for a Minster of that size
> there's very few important tombs or monuments in there - most that are seem to
> be previous abbots. I hope he ends up in York, but I don't have a problem with
> Leicester - at least they have reorganised the cathedral interior to
> accommodate him in his own space, which is how it should be! Unfortunately I
> can't see York doing that.
>
>
>
> Sharon
>

I seem to recall in York Minster there was an honoury free standing stone tomb in remembrance of Richard 111 in close proximity to the altar,on the left side facing.I may be wrong it was a few years ago.
Kathryn

--- In , "43118@..." <43118@...> wrote:
>
> Has York Minster even offered anything at all should he be buried there? I've
> not seen or heard anything. Surprisingly though, for a Minster of that size
> there's very few important tombs or monuments in there - most that are seem to
> be previous abbots. I hope he ends up in York, but I don't have a problem with
> Leicester - at least they have reorganised the cathedral interior to
> accommodate him in his own space, which is how it should be! Unfortunately I
> can't see York doing that.
>
>
>
> Sharon
>

David wrote:

"I don't think that the 1476 embassy is generally disputed except by those who want to create a myth that Henry's first act was to hoover up all those who had something to do with Titulus Regius - thus creating the entirely false impression that TR was of more significance than it actually was."

Marie replies:

This is a straw man argument. I have no agenda, I just haven't seen a shred of evidence for Stillington having been the ambassadors earlier than Hall - and I had to dig that out for myself. I'm laying down the gauntlet, I'm afraid. Give us the primary sources or let it drop.

Marie