FW: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview

Would depend on whether either army was able to withdraw in some semblance of order. If the royal army held, you might expect Lincoln. Can't think of any non-York candidate. If both armies broke, it would probably come down to the first noble able to secure the Earl of Warwick, proclaim him king and rule in his name.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jonathan,

Possibly or that might account for why he was extremely scared.Why was he wandering around for nearly two hours?(He was up to something.) I don't know. It was just a suggestion and probably wrong.MB wouldn't have allowed it if she had known.Henry was very lucky that Richard had ridden so fast and that he Henry was surrounded so quickly and the way he was.

John Ashdown-Hill says that if Richard had left the field it would have been regarded as an abdication and he would have lost the right to rule.So there would be no going back.The most important thing is that Richard gave his all and the country lost a person who could have been a great king and beneficial to all.

Kathryn
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> > The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait
>
> If they did, you can be sure Henry would have been the last to know about it.  Otherwise, you'd have seen him scampering to the nearest Channel port faster than Usain Bolt.  :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
>  
> Jonathan,
>
> Surely Richard had contacts through the Yorkist families etc? A lot of his contacts would be in the North whom he could trust.He seemed to be bringing them down to London to put his rule in place.The fact that Hastings was executed showed that he could act quickly if and when was necessary.He probably just thought the Stanley(s) would stay out of things as far as Bosworth was concerned.The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait with which to snare Richard if Stanley knew Richard was going to actively seek out Henry.Richard couldn't have forseen thatand what did happen had never been seen in this country before.Political rather than valiant.Richard's plan was to kill Henry,the right of rule would be fastened up,plus the saving of lives and then on with sorting the country out and hopefully getting his personal life back on track as soon as possible for a heir and continuity.There must have been a lot of decent nobility who would have
> welcomed a more serious King with strong Christian beliefs and sound morals,who wanted a stable and prosperous country and people.The Stanleys would have gone with the flow and towed the line and status quo would have been maintained.But Henry seemed a better bet to the opposition and he repaid them by taxing everyone to the hilt to leave a strong treasury for Arthur to inherit.Only Henry VIII was the one to get his hands on it.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> > All we can do is construct scenarios.à What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> >
> > > If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> >
> > > Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> >
> > That's interesting.à Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society?à It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line.à The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did.à Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> > Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. Itââ¬â¢s
> > all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded
> > 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no
> > idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards
> > something, but it didnââ¬â¢t always come off, and weââ¬â¢re left wondering ...why did he
> > decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video
> > interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Absolutely.
> > ÃÂ
> > Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media
> > and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to
> > ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not
> > just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to
> > people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan.
> > I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is
> > much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from
> > place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > à
> > Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses"
> > if somethingà unpleasant occurred.ààà She was a huge
> > influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to
> > do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant.à I am referring to
> > privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her
> > son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.)
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary
> > Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
> > Subject: Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty
> > with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela
> > Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > à
> > That is such a good point,
> > regarding Edward VIII, and donââ¬â¢t forget the Diana time, as well as the
> > shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that ââ¬Å"stiff
> > upper lipâ⬠for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change!à Also, Prince Phillip
> > and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a
> > five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary
> > Jones
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands
> > video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the
> > Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of
> > History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can
> > never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very
> > different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult
> > and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring
> > it all to the JR. H
> > ÃÂ
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19,
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > à
> > But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now
> > being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he
> > can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to
> > have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being
> > done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in
> > England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough
> > to guard the urn. Iââ¬â¢m sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about
> > Richard as well.
> > ÃÂ
> > I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and
> > please donââ¬â¢t think I am arguing with you. Itââ¬â¢s the House of Windsor I have the
> > gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having
> > made a decision that is to Richardââ¬â¢s detriment in more ways than one. She---yes,
> > she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so
> > doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he
> > was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and
> > say ââ¬Å"I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard IIIââ¬.
> > ÃÂ
> > How she can live with Henry VIIIââ¬â¢s legacy I do not know,
> > but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out,
> > on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to
> > conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a
> > good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince Georgeââ¬â¢s
> > 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry
> > business rankles with me.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:Jonathan
> > Evans
> > Sent:Monday,
> > February 10, 2014 12:39 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > > I would like
> > to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated
> > with such reverence, then so should
> > > Richard
> > be.
> > ÃÂ
> > I think the Queen
> > would argue that she *is* being consistent.à Once laid to rest on
> > consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct.à What's happening to Richard is
> > probably only serving to entrench that view.à The last thing she wants is
> > to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or
> > Edward IV to prove their latest theory...
> > ÃÂ
> > Jonathan
> > ÃÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester
> > has ââ¬Ëcontactsââ¬â¢ where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the
> > present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the
> > Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the
> > present ââ¬Ëfamilyââ¬â¢ have shared blood. And I donââ¬â¢t mean in the same way claimed by
> > the PA. The line back through the British Royal Familyà to Richard can be
> > traced, unless a loverââ¬â¢s child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The
> > Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyoneââ¬â¢s reckoning, so they have the
> > right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to
> > claim him as ââ¬Ëone of mineââ¬â¢ and then hand responsibility to the usual
> > authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then
> > itââ¬â¢s York. If she says Leicester, then itââ¬â¢s Leicester. If she says St. Georgeââ¬â¢s,
> > then itââ¬â¢s St. Georgeââ¬â¢s. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other
> > royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on
> > Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She
> > surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does
> > think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far
> > wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment?
> > Itââ¬â¢s very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled
> > out, or Iââ¬â¢m a republican!
> > ÃÂ
> > And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the
> > remains actually are Richardââ¬â¢s. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the
> > darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She canââ¬â¢t be, but she wonââ¬â¢t let
> > anyone test the bones to see if itââ¬â¢s true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to
> > prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richardââ¬â¢s bones are
> > concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the
> > urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially
> > Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edwardââ¬â¢s sons were
> > not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, Iââ¬â¢m just up on my pesky hind
> > legs braying again.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:group_mail_address@
> > Sent:Sunday,
> > February 09, 2014 8:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:[Richard III
> > Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Hello Sandra,
> > ÃÂ
> > I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the
> > present Duke of Gloucester?à That certainly is an idea, but I would be
> > concerned that it would put him in a difficult position?à Being our Patron,
> > he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because
> > of it?
> > ÃÂ
> > You know one of the most wonderful things about this group
> > is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person.à I see some
> > organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting
> > archeological artifact.à I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other
> > than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those
> > "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being
> > given.à Then I found this group by accident while searching for information
> > about Richard and found there were others who felt the same
> > thankfully!
> > ÃÂ
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > ---In , <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about
> > taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
> >
> >
> > --
> > ââ¬Å"None of us can have as
> > many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can tryâ⬠- Mark
> > Twain
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

I despair of yahoo. Sent this 5 hours ago and it still hasn't appeared. Not that it's anything revelatory, but it's the principle of the thing... :-)

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: jmcevans98@... <jmcevans98@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:11:42 PM

Would depend on whether either army was able to withdraw in some semblance of order. If the royal army held, you might expect Lincoln. Can't think of any non-York candidate. If both armies broke, it would probably come down to the first noble able to secure the Earl of Warwick, proclaim him king and rule in his name.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Imagine a scenario where Richard AND Henry were killed simultaneously. Who would then be the king? Sandra =^..^= From: kathryng56@... Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:27 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Jonathan,

Possibly or that might account for why he was extremely scared.Why was he wandering around for nearly two hours?(He was up to something.) I don't know. It was just a suggestion and probably wrong.MB wouldn't have allowed it if she had known.Henry was very lucky that Richard had ridden so fast and that he Henry was surrounded so quickly and the way he was.

John Ashdown-Hill says that if Richard had left the field it would have been regarded as an abdication and he would have lost the right to rule.So there would be no going back.The most important thing is that Richard gave his all and the country lost a person who could have been a great king and beneficial to all.

Kathryn
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> > The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait
>
> If they did, you can be sure Henry would have been the last to know about it. Otherwise, you'd have seen him scampering to the nearest Channel port faster than Usain Bolt. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
> Â
> Jonathan,
>
> Surely Richard had contacts through the Yorkist families etc? A lot of his contacts would be in the North whom he could trust.He seemed to be bringing them down to London to put his rule in place.The fact that Hastings was executed showed that he could act quickly if and when was necessary.He probably just thought the Stanley(s) would stay out of things as far as Bosworth was concerned.The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait with which to snare Richard if Stanley knew Richard was going to actively seek out Henry.Richard couldn't have forseen thatand what did happen had never been seen in this country before.Political rather than valiant.Richard's plan was to kill Henry,the right of rule would be fastened up,plus the saving of lives and then on with sorting the country out and hopefully getting his personal life back on track as soon as possible for a heir and continuity.There must have been a lot of decent nobility who would have
> welcomed a more serious King with strong Christian beliefs and sound morals,who wanted a stable and prosperous country and people.The Stanleys would have gone with the flow and towed the line and status quo would have been maintained.But Henry seemed a better bet to the opposition and he repaid them by taxing everyone to the hilt to leave a strong treasury for Arthur to inherit.Only Henry VIII was the one to get his hands on it.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> > All we can do is construct scenarios.ÃÂ What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> >
> > > If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> >
> > > Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> >
> > That's interesting.ÃÂ Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society?ÃÂ It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line.ÃÂ The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did.ÃÂ Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. Itââ¬â¢s
> > all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded
> > 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no
> > idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards
> > something, but it didnââ¬â¢t always come off, and weââ¬â¢re left wondering ...why did he
> > decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video
> > interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > Absolutely.
> > ÃÂ
> > Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media
> > and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to
> > ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not
> > just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to
> > people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan.
> > I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is
> > much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from
> > place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses"
> > if somethingÃÂ unpleasant occurred.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ She was a huge
> > influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to
> > do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant.ÃÂ I am referring to
> > privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her
> > son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.)
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary
> > Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
> > Subject: Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty
> > with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela
> > Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > That is such a good point,
> > regarding Edward VIII, and donââ¬â¢t forget the Diana time, as well as the
> > shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that ââ¬Å"stiff
> > upper lipâ⬠for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change!àAlso, Prince Phillip
> > and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a
> > five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary
> > Jones
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands
> > video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the
> > Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of
> > History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can
> > never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very
> > different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult
> > and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring
> > it all to the JR. H
> > ÃÂ
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19,
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > ÃÂ
> > But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now
> > being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he
> > can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to
> > have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being
> > done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in
> > England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough
> > to guard the urn. Iââ¬â¢m sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about
> > Richard as well.
> > ÃÂ
> > I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and
> > please donââ¬â¢t think I am arguing with you. Itââ¬â¢s the House of Windsor I have the
> > gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having
> > made a decision that is to Richardââ¬â¢s detriment in more ways than one. She---yes,
> > she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so
> > doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he
> > was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and
> > say ââ¬Å"I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard IIIââ¬.
> > ÃÂ
> > How she can live with Henry VIIIââ¬â¢s legacy I do not know,
> > but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out,
> > on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to
> > conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a
> > good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince Georgeââ¬â¢s
> > 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry
> > business rankles with me.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:Jonathan
> > Evans
> > Sent:Monday,
> > February 10, 2014 12:39 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > > I would like
> > to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated
> > with such reverence, then so should
> > > Richard
> > be.
> > ÃÂ
> > I think the Queen
> > would argue that she *is* being consistent.ÃÂ Once laid to rest on
> > consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct.ÃÂ What's happening to Richard is
> > probably only serving to entrench that view.ÃÂ The last thing she wants is
> > to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or
> > Edward IV to prove their latest theory...
> > ÃÂ
> > Jonathan
> > ÃÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester
> > has ââ¬Ëcontactsââ¬â¢ where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the
> > present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the
> > Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the
> > present ââ¬Ëfamilyââ¬â¢ have shared blood. And I donââ¬â¢t mean in the same way claimed by
> > the PA. The line back through the British Royal FamilyÃÂ to Richard can be
> > traced, unless a loverââ¬â¢s child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The
> > Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyoneââ¬â¢s reckoning, so they have the
> > right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to
> > claim him as ââ¬Ëone of mineââ¬â¢ and then hand responsibility to the usual
> > authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then
> > itââ¬â¢s York. If she says Leicester, then itââ¬â¢s Leicester. If she says St. Georgeââ¬â¢s,
> > then itââ¬â¢s St. Georgeââ¬â¢s. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other
> > royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on
> > Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She
> > surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does
> > think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far
> > wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment?
> > Itââ¬â¢s very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled
> > out, or Iââ¬â¢m a republican!
> > ÃÂ
> > And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the
> > remains actually are Richardââ¬â¢s. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the
> > darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She canââ¬â¢t be, but she wonââ¬â¢t let
> > anyone test the bones to see if itââ¬â¢s true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to
> > prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richardââ¬â¢s bones are
> > concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the
> > urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially
> > Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edwardââ¬â¢s sons were
> > not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, Iââ¬â¢m just up on my pesky hind
> > legs braying again.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:group_mail_address@
> > Sent:Sunday,
> > February 09, 2014 8:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:[Richard III
> > Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > Hello Sandra,
> > ÃÂ
> > I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the
> > present Duke of Gloucester?ÃÂ That certainly is an idea, but I would be
> > concerned that it would put him in a difficult position?ÃÂ Being our Patron,
> > he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because
> > of it?
> > ÃÂ
> > You know one of the most wonderful things about this group
> > is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person.ÃÂ I see some
> > organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting
> > archeological artifact.ÃÂ I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other
> > than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those
> > "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being
> > given.ÃÂ Then I found this group by accident while searching for information
> > about Richard and found there were others who felt the same
> > thankfully!
> > ÃÂ
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > ---In , <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about
> > taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
> >
> >
> > --
> > ââ¬Å"None of us can have as
> > many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can tryâ⬠- Mark
> > Twain
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

Jonathan I am still waiting for one of my posts (about the DNA) to still come through after almost 9 hours. We will have to put up with the delays I guess as there has (still is?) some sort of turf war going on on the Internet. It is a massive attack, worse than anything seen before and is so big that some parts of the Internet are experiencing delays. Add that to Yahell's usual problems and my guess is that might be what is going on this time?

http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/ddos-attack-hits-400-gbit-s-breaks-record/d/d-id/1113787

Tony

Jonathan I am still waiting for one of my posts (about the DNA) to still come through after almost 9 hours. We will have to put up with the delays I guess as there has (still is?) some sort of turf war going on on the Internet. It is a massive attack, worse than anything seen before and is so big that some parts of the Internet are experiencing delays. Add that to Yahell's usual problems and my guess is that might be what is going on this time?

http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/ddos-attack-hits-400-gbit-s-breaks-record/d/d-id/1113787

Tony