Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourne
Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourne
2013-12-02 11:54:24
I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
Regards
David
------------------------------
Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>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.
>
>
>---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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, 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
Regards
David
------------------------------
Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>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.
>
>
>---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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, 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjo
2013-12-02 16:24:53
This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
>
> As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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, 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
>
> As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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, 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjo
2013-12-02 16:30:56
No, you don't!
Elaine
--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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, 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Elaine
--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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, 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review
2013-12-02 17:24:10
Elaine wrote:
"This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
Marie replies:
Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
---In , <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
>
> As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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, 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjo
2013-12-02 17:28:35
Oh alright I don't....but I am nearly there Elaine...what the heck has St Cuthbert got to do with anything? All that probably remains is a flipping big toe! Here we have a whole skeleton with only the feet missing...they are, hopefully putting him in a tomb large enough to contain a normal size casket and surely...good grief...it is not beyond the capability of a 21st century undertaker to ensure that the bones do not tumble around. Honestly you really could make it up.
Eileen
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> No, you don't!
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> > >
> > > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> > >
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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, 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Eileen
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> No, you don't!
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> > >
> > > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> > >
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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, 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Ad
2013-12-02 17:42:25
I just wish Richard could be laid to rest once again...with honour, love and dignity. And with a guarantee that he will not be disturbed again...I cannot see what else there is to be found out. What else is there we could possibly want to know? We know the wounds he sustained...the ones that were fatal...we know he suffered humiliation wounds...we know he ate a lot of fish...that he had scoliosis which would not have shown when he was clothed..that he did not have a withered arm. Just let the poor man be laid to rest once more and have done. As Marie says none of us are going to have any input in the decision where that will be...we need to accept that. Richard needs to be re-interred now...that is perhaps what we should be making a noise about. Eileen
--- In @..., mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In @..., mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Ad
2013-12-02 21:35:59
Marie
It wasn't me it was Eileen.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
It wasn't me it was Eileen.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Revie
2013-12-02 22:38:50
Oh duh, sorry Elaine.
Marie
---In , <kathryn198@...> wrote:
Marie
It wasn't me it was Eileen.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Ad
2013-12-03 05:29:05
And here's to not being under the car park--hear. hear!
Sheffe
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 5:38:49 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Réf.: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
---In , <kathryn198@...> wrote:
Marie
It wasn't me it was Eileen.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Sheffe
From: "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 5:38:49 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Réf.: RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjourned
Oh duh, sorry Elaine.
Marie
---In , <kathryn198@...> wrote:
Marie
It wasn't me it was Eileen.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> "This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen"
>
> Marie replies:
> Please don't wish Richard hadn't been found. Yes, I agree that the squabbling is getting silly. None of us has the power to decide on Richard's burial, and nor does the RIII Society. I actually have a lot of sympathy with the desire to see him buried in York, but whatever the outcome it will be a damn sight better than staying under the car park.
>
>
>
> ---In , <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>
> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
> >
> > As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
> >
> > Regards
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> > >---In mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 mailto:, <[email protected] mailto:[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 mailto:, <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: mailto: 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Réf.: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Fwd: Judicial Review Adjo
2013-12-03 09:33:10
I am totally with you on all you have said on this Eileen, though had I
known what would happen, maybe I would have preferred to have left him
resting in peace, under a car park or not.
Paul
On 02/12/2013 17:28, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Oh alright I don't....but I am nearly there Elaine...what the heck has St Cuthbert got to do with anything? All that probably remains is a flipping big toe! Here we have a whole skeleton with only the feet missing...they are, hopefully putting him in a tomb large enough to contain a normal size casket and surely...good grief...it is not beyond the capability of a 21st century undertaker to ensure that the bones do not tumble around. Honestly you really could make it up.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>> No, you don't!
>> Elaine
>>
>> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>>> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
>>>>
>>>> As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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, 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
known what would happen, maybe I would have preferred to have left him
resting in peace, under a car park or not.
Paul
On 02/12/2013 17:28, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Oh alright I don't....but I am nearly there Elaine...what the heck has St Cuthbert got to do with anything? All that probably remains is a flipping big toe! Here we have a whole skeleton with only the feet missing...they are, hopefully putting him in a tomb large enough to contain a normal size casket and surely...good grief...it is not beyond the capability of a 21st century undertaker to ensure that the bones do not tumble around. Honestly you really could make it up.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>> No, you don't!
>> Elaine
>>
>> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>>> This is all getting rather silly now.....I'm beginning to wish Richard had never been found.....Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can't understand the objection to an ossuary. This is simply the Dean's behaving as a Christian. It only signifies a storage device for bones. It has been the accepted means of storing the honoured bones of saints for centuries. I have just got back from a trip to Durham. I would be very surprised if Saint Cuthbert was not in an ossuary within the tomb. Presumably, if an ossuary was good enough for the brother of Jesus...
>>>>
>>>> As for the modern foam suggestion, what evidence have we for how well this copes with centuries of being enclosed in a tomb?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Le lun. 2 déc. 2013 09:17 GMT, colyngbourne a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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, 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.