King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
What do Forum members make of this? I think the cathedral staff make a persuasive case & that Richard Buckby mentions only part of the history of the origins of the dig. The cathedral staff & the university & the council must be pretty confident that they will "win" the judicial review to put this new website together. If they are all working together for the first time, as one of the quotes says, what were they doing before? Ignoring each other or squabbling?
The links all look very touristy to me & perhaps I shall go to visit when some of the fuss has died down.
The Society does get a few words! Philippa Langley is mentioned but I didn't hear anything about JAH.
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
Jan here.
What do Forum members make of this? I think the cathedral staff
make a persuasive case & that Richard Buckby mentions only part of the
history of the origins of the dig. The cathedral staff & the university
& the council must be pretty confident that they will "win" the judicial
review to put this new website together. If they are all working together for
the first time, as one of the quotes says, what were they doing before? Ignoring
each other or squabbling?
The links all look very touristy to me &
perhaps I shall go to visit when some of the fuss has died down.
The Society
does get a few words! Philippa Langley is mentioned but I didn't hear anything
about JAH.
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:16 PM, "Jan Mulrenan" <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here.
What do Forum members make of this? I think the cathedral staff make a persuasive case & that Richard Buckby mentions only part of the history of the origins of the dig. The cathedral staff & the university & the council must be pretty confident that they will
"win" the judicial review to put this new website together. If they are all working together for the first time, as one of the quotes says, what were they doing before? Ignoring each other or squabbling?
The links all look very touristy to me & perhaps I shall go to visit when some of the fuss has died down.
The Society does get a few words! Philippa Langley is mentioned but I didn't hear anything about JAH.
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
I thought parts of it were interesting and informative.
As to the rest we will just have to wait and see.When the dig was first undertaken I don't think the authorities involved gave any thought about what the public might think or have opinions about regarding Richard's reburial.Because it seemed a fairly straight forward and routine plan to impliement.It has now become something rather more complicated and we can only await the outcome and hope they all get it right for Richard.
If you do go and see the Visitor Centre I hope you enjoy it and please report back.x
Kathryn x
--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Jan here.
> What do Forum members make of this? I think the cathedral staff make a persuasive case & that Richard Buckby mentions only part of the history of the origins of the dig. The cathedral staff & the university & the council must be pretty confident that they will "win" the judicial review to put this new website together. If they are all working together for the first time, as one of the quotes says, what were they doing before? Ignoring each other or squabbling?
> The links all look very touristy to me & perhaps I shall go to visit when some of the fuss has died down.
> The Society does get a few words! Philippa Langley is mentioned but I didn't hear anything about JAH.
>
> http://kingrichardinleicester.com/
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
Sent from my iPad
On 4 Feb 2014, at 20:49, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Thank you for posting this, Jan. I rather like it. I have not looked in depth, but what I've seen seems even-handed, both about Richard himself and who was involved doing what at the time of his discovery. JAH does get a look-in. His picture is alongside Philippa's in Meet The Team section. He's described as the independent historian who traced Richard's living descendant and who inspired Philippa. In general it seems to be an attempt to smooth ruffled feathers, do right by Richard, and to restore both his dignity as well as Leicester's. As I say, I haven't gone through it in detail, but what I've seen does not offend me in any way. It doesn't strike me as touristy. They intend to lay him to rest in a proper, honourable and thoughtful way, and if that means thousands of people will go to see him, I cannot in all honesty say it would be a bad thing. If he was buried meanly and tucked away again, THAT would be bad. And a huge insult. The more people see him, the more good will be accepted about him. Well, that's my take on it, FWIW. Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:16 PM To: Subject: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
Jan here.
What do Forum members make of this? I think the cathedral staff
make a persuasive case & that Richard Buckby mentions only part of the
history of the origins of the dig. The cathedral staff & the university
& the council must be pretty confident that they will "win" the judicial
review to put this new website together. If they are all working together for
the first time, as one of the quotes says, what were they doing before? Ignoring
each other or squabbling?
The links all look very touristy to me &
perhaps I shall go to visit when some of the fuss has died down.
The Society
does get a few words! Philippa Langley is mentioned but I didn't hear anything
about JAH.
http://kingrichardinleicester.com/
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only viable place.
Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light, it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
Leicester was not in any way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man himself.
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present
a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been
put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to
convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only
viable place.
Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light,
it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his
life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
Leicester was not in any
way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man himself.
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
I thought the Chapter of York had commended Richard to the care of Leicester. So York clearly thinks that is where he should rest. Presumably the Queen has given the thumbs down to Windsor, and Westminster says it doesn't have the room. Which leaves Middleham, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle and so on. He was the King of England, and I do not think he would (given the choice) wish to be anywhere other than London, the capital of his kingdom, where he'd be with his predecessors and successors, when their time came. But he didn't leave a will (at least, not one that has survived/been found), and having died in battle and been buried at Greyfriars, it seems natural to me that Leicester will remain his resting place, as it has been since 1485. What the university have said and done is one thing, but it is harsh to condemn Leicester as a whole, including the cathedral. The people of Leicester want him to stay with them. OK, they left him where he was for centuries, but so did everyone else. No one rescued him. If it were not for JAH and Philippa, he'd still be under the car park and we would not have him at all. Sandra =^..^= From: colyngbourne Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:59 AM To: Subject: RE: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only viable place.
Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light, it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
Leicester was not in any way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man himself.
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only viable place.
>
> Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light, it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
>
> Leicester was not in any way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
>
>
> The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man himself.
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
Well said colyngbourne and York does want Richard have no doubts
about that all.
--- In ,
colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the site
suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case
for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in
readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to convince an
independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only viable
place.
>
> Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable
light, it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout
his life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
>
> Leicester
was not in any way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
>
>
> The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the
king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more
prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York
campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a
website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the
connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the
governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations
should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester
don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these
would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard
Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying
no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man
himself.
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Very well said, Sandra.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>
>
>
> Â
> I thought the Chapter of York had commended Richard to the care of
> Leicester. So York clearly thinks that is where he should rest. Presumably the
> Queen has given the thumbs down to Windsor, and Westminster says it doesn’t have
> the room. Which leaves Middleham, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle and so on. He was
> the King of England, and I do not think he would (given the choice) wish to be
> anywhere other than London, the capital of his kingdom, where he’d be with his
> predecessors and successors, when their time came. But he didn’t leave a will
> (at least, not one that has survived/been found), and having died in battle and
> been buried at Greyfriars, it seems natural to me that Leicester will remain his
> resting place, as it has been since 1485.
> Â
> What the university have said and done is one thing, but it is harsh to
> condemn Leicester as a whole, including the cathedral. The people of Leicester
> want him to stay with them. OK, they left him where he was for centuries, but so
> did everyone else. No one rescued him. If it were not for JAH and
> Philippa, he’d still be under the car park and we would not have him at
> all.Â
> Â
> Sandra
> =^..^=
> Â
> From: colyngbourne
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: King Richard III and
> Leicester Cathedral
> Â
> Â
> I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present
> a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been
> put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to
> convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only
> viable place.
>
> Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light,
> it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his
> life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
>
> Leicester was not in any
> way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
>
> The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to
> reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks
> of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a
> York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It
> is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the
> connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the
> governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations
> should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester
> don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these
> would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard
> Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying
> no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man
> himself.
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Has York said so?
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
>
>
>
>
> Well said colyngbourne and York does want Richard have no doubts about that all.
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the site suggests the opposite - it is a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case for the remains to be reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in readiness for Leicester losing the licence and them having to convince an independent panel that they are "ahead of the game" and the only viable place.
> >
> > Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light, it also states - "King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his life and in death, Leicester was part of his".
> >
> > Leicester was not in any way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
> >
> >
> > The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man himself.
> >
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
yes I personally have heard it but they are waiting for the Judicial review
as Leicester should be.
--- In ,
"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Has York said
so?
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From:
christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:01
PM
> To:
> Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
>
>
>
>
> Well said colyngbourne and York does want Richard
have no doubts about that all.
>
> --- In
, colyngbourne <no_reply@>
wrote:
> >
> > I think the site suggests the opposite - it is
a concerted attempt to present a persuasive case for the remains to be
reinterred in Leicester that has been put together in readiness for Leicester
losing the licence and them having to convince an independent panel that they
are "ahead of the game" and the only viable place.
> >
> >
Whilst the site does present Richard in a reasonable light, it also states -
"King Richard is part of Leicester's story - throughout his life and in death,
Leicester was part of his".
> >
> > Leicester was not in any
way part of Richard's life "throughout his life".
> >
> >
> > The site is over-assertive of Leicester's right to reinter the
king, without consideration of any other location. The Bishop speaks of "more
prestigious, more historic places" as if the only reason there is a York
campaign is to place Richard in a Gothic, historically famous minster. It is a
website of spin and PR that slides over the lack of consultation, the
connections Richard had with the north and York in particular, and the
governmental advice that says the deceased's own likely wishes and expectations
should be inferred when it comes to burying known individuals. If Leicester
don't want to consider what Richard's own wishes might have been - whether these
would have been Westminster, Windsor, Middleham, York, Fotheringhay, Barnard
Castle or anywhere else evident from his life and history - then they are paying
no serious respect to either the good practice of burial ethics or to the man
himself.
> >
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
The Dean and Chapter of York - Dean Faull only just arriving to take up her position at York, from Leicester Cathedral - (and when we say Chapter, at that point in February last year, the Chapter consisted of about four people, as there were several vacancies) - initially commended Richard to Leicester because a) Dean Faull was from Leicester and had engaged in the arrangements for a Leicester burial two years previously - entirely without the kind of wider national consultation that the JR is now seeking to address b) Leicester held the licence which for a brief period of time looked like a "fait accompli" and that there was no alternative to Leicester or its process/progress. It would be entirely inappropriate for a sister cathedral to make a challenge for the remains.
The situation changed entirely when the Plantagenet Alliance announced their intention to challenge the validity of the licence and the lack of consultation thereof. With the process now sub judice, and the possibility that other locations might be considered should the JR prove successful, York rightly was able to give their current statement -
"The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's reinterment, based on the current legal position".
I'd say, as they are an "interested party" in the JR, and with this statement, and from everything I have heard in the background, York Minster would be very open to receiving Richard for reinterment; but rightly they are not willing to engage in open battle with another cathedral, but would wait until such time as an offer was made or requested of them.
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The Dean and Chapter of York - Dean Faull only just arriving to take up her position at York, from Leicester Cathedral - (and when we say Chapter, at that point in February last year, the Chapter consisted of about four people, as there were several vacancies) - initially commended Richard to Leicester because a) Dean Faull was from Leicester and had engaged in the arrangements for a Leicester burial two years previously - entirely without the kind of wider national consultation that the JR is now seeking to address b) Leicester held the licence which for a brief period of time looked like a "fait accompli" and that there was no alternative to Leicester or its process/progress. It would be entirely inappropriate for a sister cathedral to make a challenge for the remains.
>
> The situation changed entirely when the Plantagenet Alliance announced their intention to challenge the validity of the licence and the lack of consultation thereof. With the process now sub judice, and the possibility that other locations might be considered should the JR prove successful, York rightly was able to give their current statement -
>
>
> "The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's reinterment, based on the current legal position".
>
>
> I'd say, as they are an "interested party" in the JR, and with this statement, and from everything I have heard in the background, York Minster would be very open to receiving Richard for reinterment; but rightly they are not willing to engage in open battle with another cathedral, but would wait until such time as an offer was made or requested of them.
>
Re: King Richard III and Leicester Cathedral
--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Quite right colynbourne.
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The Dean and Chapter of York - Dean Faull only just arriving to take up her position at York, from Leicester Cathedral - (and when we say Chapter, at that point in February last year, the Chapter consisted of about four people, as there were several vacancies) - initially commended Richard to Leicester because a) Dean Faull was from Leicester and had engaged in the arrangements for a Leicester burial two years previously - entirely without the kind of wider national consultation that the JR is now seeking to address b) Leicester held the licence which for a brief period of time looked like a "fait accompli" and that there was no alternative to Leicester or its process/progress. It would be entirely inappropriate for a sister cathedral to make a challenge for the remains.
> >
> > The situation changed entirely when the Plantagenet Alliance announced their intention to challenge the validity of the licence and the lack of consultation thereof. With the process now sub judice, and the possibility that other locations might be considered should the JR prove successful, York rightly was able to give their current statement -
> >
> >
> > "The Chapter of York has maintained a neutral position regarding Richard III's reinterment, based on the current legal position".
> >
> >
> > I'd say, as they are an "interested party" in the JR, and with this statement, and from everything I have heard in the background, York Minster would be very open to receiving Richard for reinterment; but rightly they are not willing to engage in open battle with another cathedral, but would wait until such time as an offer was made or requested of them.
> >
>
