Inside Out

Jan here. Thanks for flagging this up. The woman who knows where the king's remains are is Lin Foxhall who came across to at any rate last February as sympathetic. Even if only 2 people know where he is hidden I suspect that a few more can now recognise the location after seeing the door on TV. More than 2 people use that building surely.
Pointing out that Leicester could have found the king years ago but just didn't was very worth while, I think. So much enthusiasm & justification now from university & council after PL took the actual initiative.


On 5 Feb 2014, at 07:56, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote: Well, for those who may not be able to see the programme, here's my reaction. I have now watched the relevant part, the programme being divided into about three sections on different topics. Richard is the first section, and the item is about 11-12 minutes long. Apparently only two people know where he is being kept on campus, to keep him safe from people with emotional' reasons for moving him. He is in a locked room. We did not go inside, we simply saw the lady (know her, can't remember her name  very slender, long grey hair, American/Canadian accent) with the key put it in the lock of the room with the reporter and camera crew watching on. Whether they went inside or not is not revealed. There were several snippets of interview with Vanessa Roe of PA, views of exhibitions about him (but it was rather distasteful to see what presumably were replicas of his bones being shuffled around on a table while visitors watched. What may have been his skeleton was also laid out on a table in the background as Richard Buckley was interviewed, which also bothered me. To me, it was one thing to see his remains when he was first found and rescued, but quite another to see him still laid out on a table exactly a year later. But the programme was not disrespectful and I found it informative. Leicester Cathedral quite clearly wants him, and seems a little bewildered about the PA and other attempts to prevent him from lying there. They feel that the terms of the licence are quite clear, that the licence granter knew it might be Richard who was found, and therefore there is no question that legal permission was given for him to stay in Leicester, specifically in the cathedral, nowhere else. Sandra =^..^= If you go to http://www.christiantoday.com/article/leicester.cathedrals.new.website.stakes.claim.as.richrard.iiis.rightful.burial.site/35680.htm you will read within in that there was a BBC1 programme (Inside Out  East and West Midlands) yesterday evening that was all about Richard's reburial. I didn't know about it, but it is available on catch-up TV  BBC iPlayer. Just look for the title, Inside Out, and then the East Midlands version. Presumably West Midlands as well, but I didn't look further than East. I'm just about to watch it with my morning cup of tea! It's available on iPlayer until the 10th of the month. Sandra =^..^=

Legal permission - ie the licence - is for the remains to be placed in the museum in Leicester, in St Martin's or in *any other consecrated ground* - so "anywhere else" is actually possible. Just that a university department (along with the demands of the city council that they could only have their dig, if the city kept the remains) - just a university department made the choice about where to re-inter a king of England. Hence the JR.

It does sound like the programme was reasonable in the way it presented things. As for Leicester cathedral "wanting him" - I would argue they should have very little say and they should keep quiet until the JR is over. They might feel he "belongs" there as the nearest church to Greyfriars, in which case they should also be planning to re-inter the lady found in a stone sarcophagus in Greyfriars in summer 2013 - she was of very high status, buried close to the altar.

If JAH hadn't done his research on the mit DNA years ago, they wouldn't have known who on earth the skeleton was, always supposing they would have known where to look for the Greyfriars. Wasn't it JAH who also identified the correct site for the Greyfriars too?

I posted a message in the Uni part of the new Leicester Cathedral website...asking why had the Uni reneged on the agreement/deal made to have Richard's remains taken to rest at a more suitable place until all the arguments had been resolved. I said it was unforgivable. Although my message showed up immediately it has since been removed, Says it all really. Eileen

--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> There's no mention of Philippa and John on wikepeidia's Greyfriars page either...there is some mention of the Society and Leicester Council providing funds but the majority is Leicester University and their involvement.
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To be fair it was the naive person who issued the licence - you can imagine it can't you, 'there's someone at the counter here who says they're going to dig up Richard III ha ha!' And the Uni just took advantage of it; it's a dog eat dog world and who can blame 'em. Thank gawd for the JR, but it is so undignified.
> > Â
> > As I said in another post, they seem to be tying it in with their DNA expertise in which they reckon they're world leaders - hence the pictures of the bone scanning etc. Er unfortunately no mention of JAH. Â H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 12:05, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Â
> > Legal permission - ie the licence - is for the remains to be placed in the museum in Leicester, in St Martin's or in *any other consecrated ground* - so "anywhere else" is actually possible. Just that a university department (along with the demands of the city council that they could only have their dig, if the city kept the remains) - just a university department made the choice about where to re-inter a king of England. Hence the JR.
> >
> > It does sound like the programme was reasonable in the way it presented things. As for Leicester cathedral "wanting him" - I would argue they should have very little say and they should keep quiet until the JR is over. They might feel he "belongs" there as the nearest church to Greyfriars, in which case they should also be planning to re-inter the lady found in a stone sarcophagus in Greyfriars in summer 2013 - she was of very high status, buried close to the altar.
> >
>

Per a video in the "England in the Time of Richard III" online Leicester course Richard's DNA was compared with Michael Ibsen's, whose mother JAH located. But it was also compared with another descendant's, who was found by the university. That descendant apparently did not want to be identified to the public.

This is why, when you look at the DNA graph analysis there are three lines: Richard's and two descendants. There was a 100% match between all three.

Incidentally, the woman who did the actual analysis said in the video that Leicester Uni has no ancient DNA lab, so she had to travel to use someone else's. To my recollection, that university hasn't been credited. So there's a bit of a flaw in Leicester's claiming to be a leading edge university when it comes to DNA. Modern DNA...those labs are numerous around the world. Ancient DNA, not so much apparently.

I can understand their desperation/determination to "get on the map" now and attract students/funding. Also their determination to use him into perpetuity as their local ancient DNA lab rat. It's all in how you view his remains: sacred or secular.

Unfortunately, the other, female skeleton they found isn't nearly as useful in attracting worldwide attention to Leicester's hungry academics.

~Weds

If JAH hadn't done his research on the mit DNA years ago, they wouldn't have known who on earth the skeleton was, always supposing they would have known where to look for the Greyfriars. Wasn't it JAH who also identified the correct site for the Greyfriars too?

Per a video in the "England in the Time of Richard III" online Leicester course Richard's DNA was compared with Michael Ibsen's, whose mother JAH located. But it was also compared with another descendant's, who was found by the university. That descendant apparently did not want to be identified to the public.

This is why, when you look at the DNA graph analysis there are three lines: Richard's and two descendants. There was a 100% match between all three.

Incidentally, the woman who did the actual analysis said in the video that Leicester Uni has no ancient DNA lab, so she had to travel to use someone else's. To my recollection, that university hasn't been credited. So there's a bit of a flaw in Leicester's claiming to be a leading edge university when it comes to DNA. Modern DNA...those labs are numerous around the world. Ancient DNA, not so much apparently.

I can understand their desperation/determination to "get on the map" now and attract students/funding. Also their determination to use him into perpetuity as their local ancient DNA lab rat. It's all in how you view his remains: sacred or secular.

Unfortunately, the other, female skeleton they found isn't nearly as useful in attracting worldwide attention to Leicester's hungry academics.

~Weds

If JAH hadn't done his research on the mit DNA years ago, they wouldn't have known who on earth the skeleton was, always supposing they would have known where to look for the Greyfriars. Wasn't it JAH who also identified the correct site for the Greyfriars too?

Hilary, you make the point about the licence being issued by an underling who wasn't paying attention. I absolutely believe this. The licence was applied for at the end of August - not quite Bank Holiday weekend but as near as damnit - things were in flux in the department of the Ministry of Justice as the licence was issued the day before Chris Grayling officially became the new Minister. So Ken Clarke had left the post probably some days before, and Grayling wasn't in post.

The signature on the licence is redacted so we have no way of knowing who signed off on it, but as you say, *no-one* would have thought Richard would ever be found. Buckley's letter of application states it is unlikely and even states that actually the remains of Richard might be in the river. Even as they apply for the licence to exhume that leg bone, the director of archaeology seriously thinks Richard might be in the River Soar - so what chance does any MoJ offcer have of realising the import of what they are signing off, and what authority it gives to ULAS/uni if they do find Richard?

Leicester Cathedral are, to my mind, complicit in trying to keep Richard in the city, regardless of where he might have chosen himself to be buried - and until recently when they have allowed a little more debate, I am aware that the Cathedral Facebook page deleted or blocked any comments they found unfavourable to their position, even if written in very polite terms. Dean Monteith has also emphasised to Philippa Langley that the remains *must* be interred in an ossuary box - though why a church cleric should insist on this detail is hard to explain.

I have no objections to an ossuary box in itself, though not in this case for various reasons I have detailed before on this site. But the reason why this is insisted upon is to preserve the remains for further investigations. I would argue this is disrespectful to the remains of any known individual (as opposed to unknown remains), especially those of a king of England, whose remains should be re-interred for perpetuity and not to be re-examined at later times for repeated scientific testing.