Fw: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard's DNA

Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard's remains! We're in, folks, so now we start signing it:- http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101 Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

My worry is that by mentioning placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen'. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the no more research'. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed. Sandra =^..^= From: Paul Trevor Bale Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:
There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn't find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard's remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I've only just done it, so it's not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PM To: Subject: RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read: http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's unfortunate that those outside the UK can't sign the petition.
Gilda


On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:50 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard's remains! We're in, folks, so now we start signing it:-http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101 Sandra=^..^= From: SandraMachinSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PMTo: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
My worry is that by mentioning placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen'. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the no more research'. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed. Sandra=^..^= From: Paul Trevor BaleSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:
There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn't find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard's remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I've only just done it, so it's not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III. Sandra=^..^=From: [email protected]: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PMTo: Subject: RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read:http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Signed....even if it doesn't make any difference at least we can feel like we are trying in every way available to us...Eileen

I know, NOT FAIR!

Pamela Bain| President

Bain Medina Bain, Inc.

Engineers & Surveyors

HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm

TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712

TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900

www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216

210.494.7223 ext. 223

pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

It's unfortunate that those outside the UK can't sign the petition.

Gilda

On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:50 AM, SandraMachin wrote:

Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard’s remains! We’re in, folks, so now we start signing it:-http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101

Sandra

=^..^=

From: SandraMachin

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PM

To:

Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

My worry is that by mentioning ‘placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen’. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the ‘no more research’. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Paul Trevor Bale

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM

To:

Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:

There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn’t find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard’s remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I’ve only just done it, so it’s not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: cfellinghamwebb@...

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PM

To:

Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read:http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Do you know anyone British who might sign it for you? Anything is worth trying. Sandra =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:18 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

It's unfortunate that those outside the UK can't sign the petition. Gilda On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:50 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard's remains! We're in, folks, so now we start signing it:-http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101 Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA My worry is that by mentioning placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen'. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the no more research'. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed. Sandra =^..^= From: Paul Trevor Bale Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:
There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn't find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard's remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I've only just done it, so it's not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PM To: Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read:http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Ill sign it for you if you want Pamela...? Eileen

Erm, I should clarify it to mean anyone British other than Society members who will sign it anyway, if you see what I mean. Friend? Relative? =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:25 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Do you know anyone British who might sign it for you? Anything is worth trying. Sandra =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:18 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

It's unfortunate that those outside the UK can't sign the petition. Gilda On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:50 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard's remains! We're in, folks, so now we start signing it:-http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101 Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA My worry is that by mentioning placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen'. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the no more research'. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed. Sandra =^..^= From: Paul Trevor Bale Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:
There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn't find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard's remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I've only just done it, so it's not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PM To: Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read:http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I do, actually. Good idea.
Gilda


On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:25 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Do you know anyone British who might sign it for you? Anything is worth trying. Sandra=^..^= From: Gilda FeltSent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

It's unfortunate that those outside the UK can't sign the petition.

Gilda On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:50 AM, SandraMachin wrote:


Success with the e-petition to stop the continuing research on Richard's remains! We're in, folks, so now we start signing it:-http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61101 Sandra=^..^= From: SandraMachinSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:48 PMTo: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA My worry is that by mentioning placing him somewhere according to the Christian faith prior to being re-interred wherever is finally chosen'. I might have shot myself in the foot. There are other petitions dealing with both of these, so I might have been wiser to simply stick to the no more research'. If they reject me because of this, maybe someone else will try on the research question alone? But fingers crossed. Sandra=^..^= From: Paul Trevor BaleSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA Searched Richard III and found nothing regarding this matter, only reburial locations.
Paul

On 18/02/2014 18:09, SandraMachin wrote:
There does not appear to be a government e-petition about this (if there is, I couldn't find it), so I have set one up, requesting there be no more research on Richard's remains, and that he be placed somewhere suitable according to the Christian faith, prior to being re-interred, wherever that will be. I've only just done it, so it's not up yet, but it will be. Then we can all let them know our feelings about this dreadful state of affairs. It will appear on the http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ site. Just search Richard III. Sandra=^..^=From: [email protected]: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:50 PMTo: Subject: RE: Richard's DNA

Is anyone else on here disturbed at the amount of testing that is now going on, leading to more of Richard's remains being ground up and dispersed? What on earth else needs to be 'revealed' about him that isn't already known? Eye and hair colour? We have portraits! Lactose intolerance? Likelihood to develop Alzheimer's? What possible reasons could these be for further destroying the bones or teeth of this man? How far is this going beyond the dignified treatment that anyone has a right to expect for their mortal remains? I was angry last week and coming across this article has just reignited me! It makes for an interesting read:http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/richard-iii-the-unburied-king/

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Many thanks Sandra for setting up the e-petition - I've shared it as widely as I can. I've also had people asking about it from several other countries and so I've set up an Avaaz petition that can be signed by anyone worldwide, including anyone who's already signed the e-petition - and it will ultimately be delivered direct to ULAS. I'd be very grateful if you could publicize this one too: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/University_of_Leicester_Archaeology_Service_End_testing_on_the_remains_of_King_Richard_III_and_release_them_for_reburia/?ePgBVgb

Hello! I have signed your petition, and as the link has appeared on the forum, everyone else will know now as well. I am sure word will be spread. All those concerned folk in other countries, not only the United Kingdom, will now be able to have their say as well. Well done for rallying all the troops! I have a number of friends will will be delighted with this. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:11 PM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Many thanks Sandra for setting up the e-petition - I've shared it as widely as I can. I've also had people asking about it from several other countries and so I've set up an Avaaz petition that can be signed by anyone worldwide, including anyone who's already signed the e-petition - and it will ultimately be delivered direct to ULAS. I'd be very grateful if you could publicize this one too: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/University_of_Leicester_Archaeology_Service_End_testing_on_the_remains_of_King_Richard_III_and_release_them_for_reburia/?ePgBVgb

Could Richard's remains ended up in worse possible hands than the university? ..to be found ..which was wonderful. ...and then to be handed over to them and their endless tests etc, and then they renege on the agreement with PL to let Richard be taken to rest somewhere suitable until his re-burial....who could have seen this coming....not in your worse nightmare...honestly....Leicester University...in the name of God..do the right thing....please! Eileen

The Looking for Richard team have issued a press statement just yesterday -

http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/news

Some folk are finding the link doesn't work so well, so I have c and p'd the content, and if people feel strongly about this, they should copy this to their local press and any other contacts, along with the petition link

"

MEDIA RELEASE

24 February 2014 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RICHARD III RESEARCH TEAM CONDEMNS NEW DESTRUCTIVE TESTING BY SCIENTISTS

News that scientists are performing destructive tests on the remains of Richard III has been greeted with shock by the LOOKING FOR RICHARD Project (LFR), the research team that determined the location of his grave and paid for its excavation.

Philippa Langley, who commissioned the dig (which cost over £30,000) on behalf of LFR, said her contract for the excavation stipulated that tests would be strictly for identification purposes: We were promised that once identified, Richard III would be treated with the utmost respect, and handed over to me as the named custodian so that he could be taken to a prayerful environment. Accordingly, we are calling for destructive sampling to be halted immediately.

Dr John Ashdown-Hill of LFR, who discovered Richard III's mtDNA in 2004, providing a donor sample for the 2012-13 identification of the king's remains, said that destroying parts of a person's body without consent was utterly unethical. They are acting in defiance of precedent which was set in 1965 when the House of Lords forbade scientific work on the bones of a royal princess. Richard III was a former sovereign and Head of State.

The LFR team is particularly astonished because the University of Leicester's right to hold on to Richard III is sub judice. A Judicial Review, due to resume on 13 March 2014, has been granted to a group of the king's relatives who argue that the exhumation licence, which sanctioned the university to make its own arrangements for the royal reburial, should have been opened up for public consultation.

The latest samples have been taken by unilateral decision of the university. Consent was not sought from those relatives whose standing has been recognised by the High Court, nor was the LFR team consulted. ENDS

Thanks so much Sandra - together hopefully all this will make a difference. I'm trying to push both petitions as widely as possible, and trying to make sure UK people know they can sign both (the Avaaz one also has the advantage that we can stop it and deliver it when we feel it's reached a goodly number). Fantastic to see the LFR statement today as well - I think the first strong statement they have made against the powers that be in Leicester. That needs to be circulated as much as poss too. I don't know whether you're aware but Dr John Ashdown-Hill has put both petition links on his website too, and emailed me to let me know about yours. Best wishes, Carol

Thanks for posting this - the first strong statement by the LFR against what's happening in Leicester. Dr John Ashdown-Hill has posted the two petition links on his website, so 'official' recognition of them if anyone wants to sign.

No, I didn't know J-AH had mentioned the e-petition, Carol. Thanks for the info. Let's hope enough folk share our feelings about this awful, prolonged maltreatment of a human being's remains. That any human remains should be abused like this is abhorrent, but for us it is even worse because it is Richard. And thank you for reposting the link to the petition. The Leicester Mercury site is strange sometimes. It wouldn't let me leave a comment, and then it did, but it hid' the link to the petition. And when I tried to leave a thumbs-up for you, it didn't seem to register, even though I was logged in. Oh, well... Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:42 AM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

Thanks so much Sandra - together hopefully all this will make a difference. I'm trying to push both petitions as widely as possible, and trying to make sure UK people know they can sign both (the Avaaz one also has the advantage that we can stop it and deliver it when we feel it's reached a goodly number). Fantastic to see the LFR statement today as well - I think the first strong statement they have made against the powers that be in Leicester. That needs to be circulated as much as poss too. I don't know whether you're aware but Dr John Ashdown-Hill has put both petition links on his website too, and emailed me to let me know about yours. Best wishes, Carol

Thank you, Colyngbourne.Jan.


On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:00, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

The Looking for Richard team have issued a press statement just yesterday -

http://looking-for-richard.webs.com/news

Some folk are finding the link doesn't work so well, so I have c and p'd the content, and if people feel strongly about this, they should copy this to their local press and any other contacts, along with the petition link

"

MEDIA RELEASE

24 February 2014 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RICHARD III RESEARCH TEAM CONDEMNS NEW DESTRUCTIVE TESTING BY SCIENTISTS

News that scientists are performing destructive tests on the remains of Richard III has been greeted with shock by the LOOKING FOR RICHARD Project (LFR), the research team that determined the location of his grave and paid for its excavation.

Philippa Langley, who commissioned the dig (which cost over £30,000) on behalf of LFR, said her contract for the excavation stipulated that tests would be strictly for identification purposes: We were promised that once identified, Richard III would be treated with the utmost respect, and handed over to me as the named custodian so that he could be taken to a prayerful environment. Accordingly, we are calling for destructive sampling to be halted immediately.

Dr John Ashdown-Hill of LFR, who discovered Richard III's mtDNA in 2004, providing a donor sample for the 2012-13 identification of the king's remains, said that destroying parts of a person's body without consent was utterly unethical. They are acting in defiance of precedent which was set in 1965 when the House of Lords forbade scientific work on the bones of a royal princess. Richard III was a former sovereign and Head of State.

The LFR team is particularly astonished because the University of Leicester's right to hold on to Richard III is sub judice. A Judicial Review, due to resume on 13 March 2014, has been granted to a group of the king's relatives who argue that the exhumation licence, which sanctioned the university to make its own arrangements for the royal reburial, should have been opened up for public consultation.

The latest samples have been taken by unilateral decision of the university. Consent was not sought from those relatives whose standing has been recognised by the High Court, nor was the LFR team consulted. ENDS

And ITV Calendar have got hold of the story too - http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2014-02-25/petition-launched-to-stop-more-richard-iii-tests/
Watch Calendar tonight for an interview (I'm told) in Yorks and Leicester - will no doubt raise some comment!Best, Carol

Hi SandraThe Society Facebook page have refused to post anything because the Society haven't issued a formal statement, but the belief on the Ricardian FB pages I'm on is that we should put pressure on the Exec to respond in some way. I will be visiting the Mercury site again some time for what it may be worth! It's frustrating that the Leicester authorities have all the power, but I feel everyone should keep chipping away! Best wishes, Carol

Is it me, Carol, or isn't there a link to the petitions, or even an explanation? I can't see it if it's there. There's a heading on my screen, then nothing actually about the petition. =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:19 PM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

And ITV Calendar have got hold of the story too - http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2014-02-25/petition-launched-to-stop-more-richard-iii-tests/
Watch Calendar tonight for an interview (I'm told) in Yorks and Leicester - will no doubt raise some comment! Best, Carol

Hi Carol. Maybe it's best to leave well alone. I have been told by Phil Stone that the membership will be informed about (my) petition in due course. I did not know about yours at the time I wrote to him. He said he already knew about it because J-AH had told him. So, I guess, it will be mentioned soon. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:25 PM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra The Society Facebook page have refused to post anything because the Society haven't issued a formal statement, but the belief on the Ricardian FB pages I'm on is that we should put pressure on the Exec to respond in some way. I will be visiting the Mercury site again some time for what it may be worth! It's frustrating that the Leicester authorities have all the power, but I feel everyone should keep chipping away! Best wishes, Carol

It is still however the case that the Society FB page has not allowed the Press Release from the Looking for Richard team to be posted on that page. Why not? They are not allowing a statement made by Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, Annette Carson, Dr David Johnson and Wendy Johnson concerning the remains of the king whose name the Society bears. There are 10,000 and more followers of that page, and many more who still view the page without officially following it -

I had a phonecall today from a Ricardian, and Society member, of 40-odd years standing, including active membership of a large group. She has the internet but doesn't get a daily paper - she hadn't heard about the new testing, nor about the new petitions against it, nor obviously about last night's statement from the Looking for Richard project people. At this rate before anyone even in the Society gets to hear about it and officially object, the University could have done their tests. I think we know now what Philippa and John and Annette and the Johnsons think, we ought to have a statement from the Society - does the Exec think this testing, without wider consultation, is valid? Especially considering that Anne Mowbray's remains were decently re-interred without the scientists hanging onto them.

Hi SandraHere's a link that was posted today on Facebook - to the pieces on ITV - there's a link to John's blog (with petition addresses) and to the piece shown on Calendar in the Midlands yesterday - due to be shown in the north today I gather. I see they've credited John A_H with starting the petition - I hope you don't mind that too much! I guess anyone interested will have to look for the petition links themselves. I've decided to edit the Avaaz petition to add a link to your one (if I can) to ensure people know they can sign both - if you're able to do the same that would be great http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-02-11/more-research-into-richard-iii/I'll also continue to share both as widely as I can - with this extra 'ammo'. Regarding the LFR statement, I've heard through the grapevine (FB) that it wasn't immediately submitted to the Society, but has been now. On another Forum thread Colyngbourne has questioned why members aren't being made aware of the testing, the statement and the petitions. I was told it was 'too controversial' to post on the FB page, where discussion in the past has got too heated over the reburial issue. Information sharing with members seems to have got lost in the official 'neutral' policy. For me, the society can be neutral as a body, but still allow members to make their own minds up through information sharing and discussion. Members who aren't internet savvy, or not on Facebook, where much of the information is having to be shared, will have little idea of the disgraceful situation that has come about. Sorry about the rant! Thanks so much for getting this petition started. With the LFR statement finally coming out, it does seem as though things may be moving on. Best wishes, Carol

I agree Colyngbourne, it's very frustrating. I have heard the statement was not immediately sent to the Society though, so maybe it will be posted soon with an official statement (or maybe heads will be buried in the sand again - I'm not holding my breath). The official 'neutrality' has worn very thin for me, especially since a rather tautological exchange of emails I had with Phil Stone a couple of weeks ago. I don't honestly think the Society will officially object to anything that Leicester Uni does - though I hope I will eat those words very soon. Meanwhile, I hope you asked your friend to sign the petitions (and share them with her friends!) Best wishes, Carol

I am totally at a loss regarding Phil Stone's attitude. he should be standing up to defend the king, not sitting there doing nothing in case the Society gets into trouble, or upsets someone. He always forgets it is Richard's name first in the title The Richard the Third Society!
Paul
On 25/02/2014 18:47, SandraMachin wrote:
Hi Carol. Maybe it’s best to leave well alone. I have been told by Phil Stone that the membership will be informed about (my) petition in due course. I did not know about yours at the time I wrote to him. He said he already knew about it because J-AH had told him. So, I guess, it will be mentioned soon. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:25 PM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra

The Society Facebook page have refused to post anything because the Society haven't issued a formal statement, but the belief on the Ricardian FB pages I'm on is that we should put pressure on the Exec to respond in some way. I will be visiting the Mercury site again some time for what it may be worth! It's frustrating that the Leicester authorities have all the power, but I feel everyone should keep chipping away! Best wishes, Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Carol. I'm not all that computer savvy, and easily come unstuck with adding to posts and so on. Nor am I on Facebook, I fear. A bit of a failure, eh? Anyway, I may have an opportunity to mention the petitions on BBC Radio Gloucestershire http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qzxkj on Friday afternoon at 3.15. I'm being interviewed about my forthcoming Richard novel, Cicely's King Richard, which is due out on 30th May. You can see it on Amazon, just search the author name Sandra Heath Wilson. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cicelys-King-Richard-Cicely-Plantagenet/dp/071981233X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393413705&sr=8-1&keywords=Sandra+Heath+Wilson. I'm assured by the publisher that the correct crown will be on the cover of the bookshelf book! It is the first of a trilogy (the other two concern Henry and Lincoln) all coming out this year. I've written a fourth and am on the fifth, but will have to see how the first three go first. Anyway, I'm hoping to get a chance to mention the petitions on air, but will have to see how the interview develops. I never know in advance what the questions will be, or the chances of shoehorning something in. I may be warned not to mention anything contentious or subject to legal proceedings. Having a go at Leicester Uni's continuous research could well be regarded as contentious. <g> I will certainly be extolling Richard's virtues. I don't mind if J-AH gets the credit for the petition, only that it prospers! <g> If I can mention the petitions on the radio, what is the quickest, most easily remembered way of directing to yours? I mean, for mine I can say go to Government e-petitions, search Richard III, and the petition is the third one or so down the list. Sandra =^..^=

From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra Here's a link that was posted today on Facebook - to the pieces on ITV - there's a link to John's blog (with petition addresses) and to the piece shown on Calendar in the Midlands yesterday - due to be shown in the north today I gather. I see they've credited John A_H with starting the petition - I hope you don't mind that too much! I guess anyone interested will have to look for the petition links themselves. I've decided to edit the Avaaz petition to add a link to your one (if I can) to ensure people know they can sign both - if you're able to do the same that would be great http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-02-11/more-research-into-richard-iii/ I'll also continue to share both as widely as I can - with this extra 'ammo'. Regarding the LFR statement, I've heard through the grapevine (FB) that it wasn't immediately submitted to the Society, but has been now. On another Forum thread Colyngbourne has questioned why members aren't being made aware of the testing, the statement and the petitions. I was told it was 'too controversial' to post on the FB page, where discussion in the past has got too heated over the reburial issue. Information sharing with members seems to have got lost in the official 'neutral' policy. For me, the society can be neutral as a body, but still allow members to make their own minds up through information sharing and discussion. Members who aren't internet savvy, or not on Facebook, where much of the information is having to be shared, will have little idea of the disgraceful situation that has come about. Sorry about the rant! Thanks so much for getting this petition started. With the LFR statement finally coming out, it does seem as though things may be moving on. Best wishes, Carol

Good luck with the interview Sandra. The book sounds good!
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 11:38
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA



Hi Carol. I'm not all that computer savvy, and easily come unstuck with adding to posts and so on. Nor am I on Facebook, I fear. A bit of a failure, eh? Anyway, I may have an opportunity to mention the petitions on BBC Radio Gloucestershire http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qzxkj on Friday afternoon at 3.15. I'm being interviewed about my forthcoming Richard novel, Cicely's King Richard, which is due out on 30th May. You can see it on Amazon, just search the author name Sandra Heath Wilson. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cicelys-King-Richard-Cicely-Plantagenet/dp/071981233X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393413705&sr=8-1&keywords=Sandra+Heath+Wilson. I'm assured by the publisher that the correct crown will be on the cover of the bookshelf book! It is the first of a trilogy (the other two concern Henry and Lincoln) all coming out this year. I've written a fourth and am on the fifth, but will have to see how the first three go first. Anyway, I'm hoping to get a chance to mention the petitions on air, but will have to see how the interview develops. I never know in advance what the questions will be, or the chances of shoehorning something in. I may be warned not to mention anything contentious or subject to legal proceedings. Having a go at Leicester Uni's continuous research could well be regarded as contentious. <g> I will certainly be extolling Richard's virtues. I don't mind if J-AH gets the credit for the petition, only that it prospers! <g> If I can mention the petitions on the radio, what is the quickest, most easily remembered way of directing to yours? I mean, for mine I can say go to Government e-petitions, search Richard III, and the petition is the third one or so down the list. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA Hi Sandra Here's a link that was posted today on Facebook - to the pieces on ITV - there's a link to John's blog (with petition addresses) and to the piece shown on Calendar in the Midlands yesterday - due to be shown in the north today I gather. I see they've credited John A_H with starting the petition - I hope you don't mind that too much! I guess anyone interested will have to look for the petition links themselves. I've decided to edit the Avaaz petition to add a link to your one (if I can) to ensure people know they can sign both - if you're able to do the same that would be great http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-02-11/more-research-into-richard-iii/ I'll also continue to share both as widely as I can - with this extra 'ammo'. Regarding the LFR statement, I've heard through the grapevine (FB) that it wasn't immediately submitted to the Society, but has been now. On another Forum thread Colyngbourne has questioned why members aren't being made aware of the testing, the statement and the petitions. I was told it was 'too controversial' to post on the FB page, where discussion in the past has got too heated over the reburial issue. Information sharing with members seems to have got lost in the official 'neutral' policy. For me, the society can be neutral as a body, but still allow members to make their own minds up through information sharing and discussion. Members who aren't internet savvy, or not on Facebook, where much of the information is having to be shared, will have little idea of the disgraceful situation that has come about. Sorry about the rant! Thanks so much for getting this petition started. With the LFR statement finally coming out, it does seem as though things may be moving on. Best wishes, Carol

Thank you, Liz. On both counts. Sandra =^..^= From: liz williams Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:49 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Good luck with the interview Sandra. The book sounds good! From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 11:38
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA


Hi Carol. I'm not all that computer savvy, and easily come unstuck with adding to posts and so on. Nor am I on Facebook, I fear. A bit of a failure, eh? Anyway, I may have an opportunity to mention the petitions on BBC Radio Gloucestershire http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qzxkj on Friday afternoon at 3.15. I'm being interviewed about my forthcoming Richard novel, Cicely's King Richard, which is due out on 30th May. You can see it on Amazon, just search the author name Sandra Heath Wilson. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cicelys-King-Richard-Cicely-Plantagenet/dp/071981233X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393413705&sr=8-1&keywords=Sandra+Heath+Wilson. I'm assured by the publisher that the correct crown will be on the cover of the bookshelf book! It is the first of a trilogy (the other two concern Henry and Lincoln) all coming out this year. I've written a fourth and am on the fifth, but will have to see how the first three go first. Anyway, I'm hoping to get a chance to mention the petitions on air, but will have to see how the interview develops. I never know in advance what the questions will be, or the chances of shoehorning something in. I may be warned not to mention anything contentious or subject to legal proceedings. Having a go at Leicester Uni's continuous research could well be regarded as contentious. <g> I will certainly be extolling Richard's virtues. I don't mind if J-AH gets the credit for the petition, only that it prospers! <g> If I can mention the petitions on the radio, what is the quickest, most easily remembered way of directing to yours? I mean, for mine I can say go to Government e-petitions, search Richard III, and the petition is the third one or so down the list. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA Hi Sandra Here's a link that was posted today on Facebook - to the pieces on ITV - there's a link to John's blog (with petition addresses) and to the piece shown on Calendar in the Midlands yesterday - due to be shown in the north today I gather. I see they've credited John A_H with starting the petition - I hope you don't mind that too much! I guess anyone interested will have to look for the petition links themselves. I've decided to edit the Avaaz petition to add a link to your one (if I can) to ensure people know they can sign both - if you're able to do the same that would be great http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-02-11/more-research-into-richard-iii/ I'll also continue to share both as widely as I can - with this extra 'ammo'. Regarding the LFR statement, I've heard through the grapevine (FB) that it wasn't immediately submitted to the Society, but has been now. On another Forum thread Colyngbourne has questioned why members aren't being made aware of the testing, the statement and the petitions. I was told it was 'too controversial' to post on the FB page, where discussion in the past has got too heated over the reburial issue. Information sharing with members seems to have got lost in the official 'neutral' policy. For me, the society can be neutral as a body, but still allow members to make their own minds up through information sharing and discussion. Members who aren't internet savvy, or not on Facebook, where much of the information is having to be shared, will have little idea of the disgraceful situation that has come about. Sorry about the rant! Thanks so much for getting this petition started. With the LFR statement finally coming out, it does seem as though things may be moving on. Best wishes, Carol

Hi Sandra - a failure?! With yet another book about to be published and successfully avoiding being sucked into Facebook as well?! I've been spending far too much time on it recently, which is no good for the blood pressure (or for my writing), though perhaps better for feeling like one is contributing a little. What fantastic news about the new book, all the books - and the opportunity offered by the interview too! I imagine the best route to the Avaaz petition would be to search on Avaaz and Richard III (there doesn't seem to be a search facility on the Avaaz site itself, which is odd - but then I'm not very computer savvy either!) John A-H's previous petition came up first for me on Google, but ours is just below. Or perhaps simply direct people to his website and blog as both petitions are linked there. Good luck with the interview overall, and of course extolling Richard's many virtues! If you are warned off mentioning the testing, promoting JA-H's and the LFR teams role surely should be uncontentious (except of course for the university, which seems to struggle with it). If it's OK by you, I will post details of the interview and books on FB and twitter. With best wishes, Carol

Hi Paul, if this forum had a 'like' button, your message would trigger my pressing of it! You echo what I hear most days on FB (my usual stamping ground). Many people can't understand how the Society (as a body) can be taking this view - and many say that's why they won't join it, or it's why they won't (or haven't) renew(ed) membership. To me it's sad that the Society doesn't seem to be taking this unique opportunity to get the message about Richard across to the public - because very little of what I see coming from the Leicester camp is supportive of the original mission of the Society, to restore his reputation (paraphrased, admittedly). Much of it is actually very anti-Richard, and, for example, the idea of commemorating him with a window showing his naked body flung across the back of a horse and paraded through the streets made me very angry. Perhaps I'm one of those 'emotional' supporters that have been denigrated in all this, but I find it very difficult not to become emotional about injustice. Regards, Carol

Carol, I found that if I Googled Avaaz-end-testing it turns your petition up first in the results, so that's what I'll say. If I get the chance. Or, if there isn't an opportunity to indicate two petitions, I'll go for J-AH's website. I'm sure he won't mind. I'm going to contact you off list, if that's OK. To jaw about writing. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:39 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra - a failure?! With yet another book about to be published and successfully avoiding being sucked into Facebook as well?! I've been spending far too much time on it recently, which is no good for the blood pressure (or for my writing), though perhaps better for feeling like one is contributing a little. What fantastic news about the new book, all the books - and the opportunity offered by the interview too! I imagine the best route to the Avaaz petition would be to search on Avaaz and Richard III (there doesn't seem to be a search facility on the Avaaz site itself, which is odd - but then I'm not very computer savvy either!) John A-H's previous petition came up first for me on Google, but ours is just below. Or perhaps simply direct people to his website and blog as both petitions are linked there. Good luck with the interview overall, and of course extolling Richard's many virtues! If you are warned off mentioning the testing, promoting JA-H's and the LFR teams role surely should be uncontentious (except of course for the university, which seems to struggle with it). If it's OK by you, I will post details of the interview and books on FB and twitter. With best wishes, Carol

I think, to be fair to the Society, they're very conscious of (a) a split in their own ranks and (b) the fact that, once the wrangling is all over, they'll have to work whichever institution ultimately receives Richard. It's an invidious position, but they've also perhaps contributed to their own difficulties with some PR that has been less than sure-footed.

Re the petition, I don't feel able to sign it without knowing more about the work in question. I've got no objection to the mapping of the genome, but I may object to how it would be done.

Jonathan

P.S. Where did you hear the bit about the stained glass window depicting the return of Richard's body to Leicester after the Bosworth? I've not read that before and, although the concept surprised me, in context it could be powerfully moving in the manner of the Stations of the Cross...


From: "cfellinghamwebb@..." <cfellinghamwebb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 13:46
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Paul, if this forum had a 'like' button, your message would trigger my pressing of it! You echo what I hear most days on FB (my usual stamping ground). Many people can't understand how the Society (as a body) can be taking this view - and many say that's why they won't join it, or it's why they won't (or haven't) renew(ed) membership. To me it's sad that the Society doesn't seem to be taking this unique opportunity to get the message about Richard across to the public - because very little of what I see coming from the Leicester camp is supportive of the original mission of the Society, to restore his reputation (paraphrased, admittedly). Much of it is actually very anti-Richard, and, for example, the idea of commemorating him with a window showing his naked body flung across the back of a horse and paraded through the streets made me very angry. Perhaps I'm one of those 'emotional' supporters that have been denigrated in all this, but I find it very difficult not to become emotional about injustice. Regards, Carol

This is a continuing nightmare.....except one usually wakes up from a nightmare....in this case it just goes on and on and actually gets worse..will no one with any clout wake up and say something...I have in mind here representatives of the royal family, the appropriate government department, and last but not least the Society.
JAH and PL have both spoken up but as individuals and not for the Society whose silence is deafening on this matter. Eileen

Sandra, how marvelous ANOTHER book. I hope it sells like hot cakes!
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:09 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Carol, I found that if I Googled Avaaz-end-testing it turns your petition up first in the results, so that's what I'll say. If I get the chance. Or, if there isn't an opportunity to indicate two petitions, I'll go for J-AH's website. I'm sure he won't mind. I'm going to contact you off list, if that's OK. To jaw about writing. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:39 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra - a failure?! With yet another book about to be published and successfully avoiding being sucked into Facebook as well?! I've been spending far too much time on it recently, which is no good for the blood pressure (or for my writing), though perhaps better for feeling like one is contributing a little. What fantastic news about the new book, all the books - and the opportunity offered by the interview too! I imagine the best route to the Avaaz petition would be to search on Avaaz and Richard III (there doesn't seem to be a search facility on the Avaaz site itself, which is odd - but then I'm not very computer savvy either!) John A-H's previous petition came up first for me on Google, but ours is just below. Or perhaps simply direct people to his website and blog as both petitions are linked there. Good luck with the interview overall, and of course extolling Richard's many virtues! If you are warned off mentioning the testing, promoting JA-H's and the LFR teams role surely should be uncontentious (except of course for the university, which seems to struggle with it). If it's OK by you, I will post details of the interview and books on FB and twitter. With best wishes, Carol

So do I, Pamela! <grin> Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Bain Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:33 PM To: mailto: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Sandra, how marvelous ANOTHER book. I hope it sells like hot cakes!
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:09 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Carol, I found that if I Googled Avaaz-end-testing it turns your petition up first in the results, so that's what I'll say. If I get the chance. Or, if there isn't an opportunity to indicate two petitions, I'll go for J-AH's website. I'm sure he won't mind. I'm going to contact you off list, if that's OK. To jaw about writing. Sandra =^..^= From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:39 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra - a failure?! With yet another book about to be published and successfully avoiding being sucked into Facebook as well?! I've been spending far too much time on it recently, which is no good for the blood pressure (or for my writing), though perhaps better for feeling like one is contributing a little. What fantastic news about the new book, all the books - and the opportunity offered by the interview too! I imagine the best route to the Avaaz petition would be to search on Avaaz and Richard III (there doesn't seem to be a search facility on the Avaaz site itself, which is odd - but then I'm not very computer savvy either!) John A-H's previous petition came up first for me on Google, but ours is just below. Or perhaps simply direct people to his website and blog as both petitions are linked there. Good luck with the interview overall, and of course extolling Richard's many virtues! If you are warned off mentioning the testing, promoting JA-H's and the LFR teams role surely should be uncontentious (except of course for the university, which seems to struggle with it). If it's OK by you, I will post details of the interview and books on FB and twitter. With best wishes, Carol

Good luck, Sandra. I hope you generate plenty of interest & lots of sales.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 26 Feb 2014, at 11:38, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Hi Carol. I'm not all that computer savvy, and easily come unstuck with adding to posts and so on. Nor am I on Facebook, I fear. A bit of a failure, eh? Anyway, I may have an opportunity to mention the petitions on BBC Radio Gloucestershire http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qzxkj on Friday afternoon at 3.15. I'm being interviewed about my forthcoming Richard novel, Cicely's King Richard, which is due out on 30th May. You can see it on Amazon, just search the author name Sandra Heath Wilson. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cicelys-King-Richard-Cicely-Plantagenet/dp/071981233X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393413705&sr=8-1&keywords=Sandra+Heath+Wilson. I'm assured by the publisher that the correct crown will be on the cover of the bookshelf book! It is the first of a trilogy (the other two concern Henry and Lincoln) all coming out this year. I've written a fourth and am on the fifth, but will have to see how the first three go first. Anyway, I'm hoping to get a chance to mention the petitions on air, but will have to see how the interview develops. I never know in advance what the questions will be, or the chances of shoehorning something in. I may be warned not to mention anything contentious or subject to legal proceedings. Having a go at Leicester Uni's continuous research could well be regarded as contentious. <g> I will certainly be extolling Richard's virtues. I don't mind if J-AH gets the credit for the petition, only that it prospers! <g> If I can mention the petitions on the radio, what is the quickest, most easily remembered way of directing to yours? I mean, for mine I can say go to Government e-petitions, search Richard III, and the petition is the third one or so down the list. Sandra =^..^=

From: cfellinghamwebb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Hi Sandra

Here's a link that was posted today on Facebook - to the pieces on ITV - there's a link to John's blog (with petition addresses) and to the piece shown on Calendar in the Midlands yesterday - due to be shown in the north today I gather. I see they've credited John A_H with starting the petition - I hope you don't mind that too much! I guess anyone interested will have to look for the petition links themselves. I've decided to edit the Avaaz petition to add a link to your one (if I can) to ensure people know they can sign both - if you're able to do the same that would be great http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-02-11/more-research-into-richard-iii/ I'll also continue to share both as widely as I can - with this extra 'ammo'. Regarding the LFR statement, I've heard through the grapevine (FB) that it wasn't immediately submitted to the Society, but has been now. On another Forum thread Colyngbourne has questioned why members aren't being made aware of the testing, the statement and the petitions. I was told it was 'too controversial' to post on the FB page, where discussion in the past has got too heated over the reburial issue. Information sharing with members seems to have got lost in the official 'neutral' policy. For me, the society can be neutral as a body, but still allow members to make their own minds up through information sharing and discussion. Members who aren't internet savvy, or not on Facebook, where much of the information is having to be shared, will have little idea of the disgraceful situation that has come about. Sorry about the rant! Thanks so much for getting this petition started. With the LFR statement finally coming out, it does seem as though things may be moving on. Best wishes, Carol

Jonathan wrote:"Re the petition, I don't feel able to sign it without knowing more about the work in question. I've got no objection to the mapping of the genome, but I may object to how it would be done."
Ditto.

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I'm not really upset by scientific testing. I'd like them to gather as much information as possible, while it's still possible - you never know which small detail might be important for future research. Of course it all must be done respectfully, but I can't see how DNA testing and the like could be done particularly DISrespectfully&? I don't see taking tiny samples from Richard's bones as significantly different from taking a living person's blood sample: I don't see how it compromises the integrity and dignity of his remains. But I'm assuming that the sample-taking doesn't involve anyone running amok with a mattock& like Jonathan, I don't know the details of what exactly it is that they do to the remains, so I can't comment either way.

I do understand why many find the testing itself distasteful, but Richard's remains *are* a unique opportunity - a window into his life and his time period.

To be honest, I personally can't think of any kind of scientific testing that would tip my outrage scales anywhere near as much as e.g. the idea of putting his remains on display. Wasn't there some talk of this at some point? Dear God, now *that* defines the word 'disrespectful' if anything!

Pansy

Oh my, congratulations on the book, Sandra! The radio interview sounds scary, but what a marvellous opportunity! Well done :)
Pansy

It's the length of time and constant picking away that does it for me. Yes, there was testing at the beginning to establish who he was, and how he died. And maybe for a couple of months afterward it was still acceptable. Just. But not now, a year later, with, apparently, no end in sight. And, if it's true, they want to have access to his remains even after he has been reburied! Not disrespectful? That, to me, is very disrespectful indeed. The whole thing has become disrespectful. Perhaps they should be given carte blanche to plunder other tombs. Well, why not? The principle is the same. They want a sample, maybe two, perhaps four, to be on the safe side, so they open the tomb and simply take what they want. I wonder if, should they find they do have King Alfred's remains, they will do the same to him? If not, why not? And what if, for example, they found the remains of John de la Pole at Stoke Field? Warwick the Kingmaker? King Arthur? Anyone else you care to mention? And let's creep forward through the centuries. At what point does it become unacceptable? !9th century? 20th? If a murder victim with no living relatives is found after being missing for thirty years, how much research' is conducted? Enough to formally identify? Or do they go on and on, DNA, genomes, whatever. No, they do not, they identify and decide cause of death. It begins to feel that if a rediscovered historic figure from earlier centuries was unfortunate enough to be buried somewhere that is no longer consecrated ground, or never was in the first place, they are likely to be treated purely as lab fodder. And it could continue after their reburial  on consecrated ground. It's horrible, and all in the name of science. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:17 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Jonathan wrote: "Re the petition, I don't feel able to sign it without knowing more about the work in question. I've got no objection to the mapping of the genome, but I may object to how it would be done." Ditto.

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I'm not really upset by scientific testing. I'd like them to gather as much information as possible, while it's still possible - you never know which small detail might be important for future research. Of course it all must be done respectfully, but I can't see how DNA testing and the like could be done particularly DISrespectfully&? I don't see taking tiny samples from Richard's bones as significantly different from taking a living person's blood sample: I don't see how it compromises the integrity and dignity of his remains. But I'm assuming that the sample-taking doesn't involve anyone running amok with a mattock& like Jonathan, I don't know the details of what exactly it is that they do to the remains, so I can't comment either way.

I do understand why many find the testing itself distasteful, but Richard's remains *are* a unique opportunity - a window into his life and his time period.

To be honest, I personally can't think of any kind of scientific testing that would tip my outrage scales anywhere near as much as e.g. the idea of putting his remains on display. Wasn't there some talk of this at some point? Dear God, now *that* defines the word 'disrespectful' if anything!

Pansy

Thank you, Pansy. Yes, scary, but I've learned the hard way what to expect, having been interviewed (a while back now) by a DJ who shoved my then book in my hand as soon as I sat down, and said, Read from it. Then he immediately put me live on air. Not even enough time to cough and clear my throat. I remember him, believe me. And I still await my moment of revenge! Believe me, my principles would fall by the wayside and I'd sanction ten years of research on his carcass! <g> Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:23 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Oh my, congratulations on the book, Sandra! The radio interview sounds scary, but what a marvellous opportunity! Well done :) Pansy

I am in agreement with you here, Pansy. This is, or should be, a once in a lifetime opportunity for research. I hope, and pray, it is being done respectfully, and that once all the scientific research has been done, then Richard can be laid to rest in peace without further disturbance, at least for many years, and only then in the light of new devastating scientific progress.
It ill behoves us as a society to try to prevent scientific investigations when we would all love to see some further research on the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey.
Of course we don't have the full details of what they are trying to do.
I also wondered, although I am not here to be an apologist for the University of Leicester, if not moving the body to a religious house, was anything to do with security.
I hope I am not upsetting anyone, I certainly don't mean to.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 7:17:27 PM

Jonathan wrote:"Re the petition, I don't feel able to sign it without knowing more about the work in question. I've got no objection to the mapping of the genome, but I may object to how it would be done."
Ditto.

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I'm not really upset by scientific testing. I'd like them to gather as much information as possible, while it's still possible - you never know which small detail might be important for future research. Of course it all must be done respectfully, but I can't see how DNA testing and the like could be done particularly DISrespectfully&? I don't see taking tiny samples from Richard's bones as significantly different from taking a living person's blood sample: I don't see how it compromises the integrity and dignity of his remains. But I'm assuming that the sample-taking doesn't involve anyone running amok with a mattock& like Jonathan, I don't know the details of what exactly it is that they do to the remains, so I can't comment either way.

I do understand why many find the testing itself distasteful, but Richard's remains *are* a unique opportunity - a window into his life and his time period.

To be honest, I personally can't think of any kind of scientific testing that would tip my outrage scales anywhere near as much as e.g. the idea of putting his remains on display. Wasn't there some talk of this at some point? Dear God, now *that* defines the word 'disrespectful' if anything!

Pansy

Pansy wrote:
To be honest, I personally can't think of any kind of scientific testing that would tip my outrage scales anywhere
near as much as e.g. the idea of putting his remains on display. Wasn't there some talk of this at some point? Dear God, now *that* defines the word 'disrespectful' if anything!
Eva answers:
I totally agree with you, that taking samples for DNA-testing is not in itself disrespectful. And I can somehow understand the scientists that they want to research as much as they can before Richard's bones are re-
interred. Better they do it now than so that his remains can lie undisturbed afterwards.
For me these are just Richard's bones, not the essence of Richard.
But I understand and respect that others see that differently!
Disrespectful for me is for instance the careless finishing of the recreation head that makes me angry each time I see it.
Eva

Me either Pansy. My gracious, they must have done every test in the world, already. This sounds like a sham to keep the bones.
On Feb 26, 2014, at 2:13 PM, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:

Pansy wrote:
To be honest, I personally can't think of any kind of scientific testing that would tip my outrage scales anywhere
near as much as e.g. the idea of putting his remains on display. Wasn't there some talk of this at some point? Dear God, now *that* defines the word 'disrespectful' if anything!
Eva answers:
I totally agree with you, that taking samples for DNA-testing is not in itself disrespectful. And I can somehow understand the scientists that they want to research as much as they can before Richard's bones are re-
interred. Better they do it now than so that his remains can lie undisturbed afterwards.
For me these are just Richard's bones, not the essence of Richard.
But I understand and respect that others see that differently!
Disrespectful for me is for instance the careless finishing of the recreation head that makes me angry each time I see it.
Eva

Sandra wrote:"And, if it's true, they want to have access to his remains even after he has been reburied!"
Well, that IS unacceptable, and I hope it won't happen.

Sandra, believe me, I do understand your point of view!

I suppose I'm just hoping that IF they conduct the research respectfully - which I obviously don't know, not knowing the details of it - they might stumble on some crucial information. Richard's brief reign is shrouded in so much mystery& no, his bones won't be able to tell us what happened to Edward's sons (among many other things), but like I said before, you never know what information may turn out to be important later on. For that reason I'm glad that his DNA is mapped out for future reference. I also hope someone with expertise on scoliosis is looking at his spine curvature and how it might have affected him in life, because it's such a big part of Richard's posthumous reputation, and there are STILL people thinking he was a 'hunchback'.

At any rate, I'd rather they take their samples now than after the reinterment. Of course, I'd have wished him to be buried for good by now, but as that's obviously not going to happen just yet for reasons independent of the research, I don't see the harm in continuing research, AS LONG AS the research is conducted in a respectful manner.

But then, I wouldn't mind the same thing being done to my remains, if my remains had any historical value at all! I just feel like research into his DNA is pretty much the least of the indignities Richard has suffered in this whole debacle.

Do we actually know that they're constantly 'picking away', by the way? I'd have thought they have taken whatever samples they need. You don't need much for this sort of research, after all.

Pansy

I have just read, with enormous relief, that Buckingham Palace have had some input although it turns out that the LU have chosen to ignore it.
JAH has written on the Live Science website "Why is the University of Leicester doing this? The DNA testing will add very little to scientific knowledge and it breaks agreements with Buckingham Palace made before the university got involved in the search"....."The university claims the right to continue the scientific investigation and has already taken addition bone samples. Even if the Courts rule the University doesn't have legal custody of the body, they may still continue the DNA tests..."
This is from the horses mouth as it were and JAH is the one person I would give credence to in this matter.
Seems to me that the University are a law unto themselves....poor Richard ...Eileen

Eva wrote:"Disrespectful for me is for instance the careless finishing of the recreation head that makes me angry each time I see it."

Me too. And now, to the majority of people, that's what Richard 'really looked like'...
Pansy

Jess wrote:

"It ill behoves us as a society to try to prevent scientific investigations when we would all love to see some further research on the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey."

Exactly.

Isn't that what Richard's case usually needs most - more science, more neutrality, less emotion and myth? And sometimes the most unexpected small details bear a great importance.

I'm actually surprised that they're investing so much time (and money) in this research. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the whole thing, but I do know that if any important new information comes out of it, I'll be pleased.

Pansy

Those enormous woolly bears over his eyes get me. In all his portraits he has very well-behaved eyebrows, then suddenly these giant caterpillars. No wonder his eyes are on the way to crossed, he's watching out for any sign of an unwelcome advance down his nose. Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:21 PM To: Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA

Eva wrote: "Disrespectful for me is for instance the careless finishing of the recreation head that makes me angry each time I see it."

Me too. And now, to the majority of people, that's what Richard 'really looked like'...
Pansy

That's interesting, Eileen. Thank you. I honestly thought Buck House was pretending it didn't know who the heck Richard III was. Sandra =^..^= From: cherryripe.eileenb@... Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:17 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

I have just read, with enormous relief, that Buckingham Palace have had some input although it turns out that the LU have chosen to ignore it. JAH has written on the Live Science website "Why is the University of Leicester doing this? The DNA testing will add very little to scientific knowledge and it breaks agreements with Buckingham Palace made before the university got involved in the search"....."The university claims the right to continue the scientific investigation and has already taken addition bone samples. Even if the Courts rule the University doesn't have legal custody of the body, they may still continue the DNA tests..." This is from the horses mouth as it were and JAH is the one person I would give credence to in this matter. Seems to me that the University are a law unto themselves....poor Richard ...Eileen

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but I can never, ever agree that even more tests on Richard's remains should go ahead and I am more than a little shocked to find that some of us view it as, well, ok. What more could there possibly be to find out? we now know how he died, that he did have indeed have scoliosis, how tall he was, he are a lot of fish etc?..what in God's name is there still to be discovered about him? The continuing testing of Richard's bones, which destroys something of them and even a tooth has been given to another University..I find absolutely abhorrent. There has been much discussion on here already and I don't intend to go over old ground but I would just point out these are the remains of an annointed King who died bravely in battle defending his country...his remains should be treated honourable..as is usually what happens here in the UK and other countries .this continuing testing is not honourable and finally Liecester university are not honourable either..has it been forgotten how they reneged on the agreement they had with PL that after tests were made his remains should be taken to a place of sanctity until the argument of where his final resting place could be resolved. I find it interesting that the main participants in the search for Richard I.e. JAH and PL believe strongly that his remains should be taken somewhere suitable and have spoken out against LU's breaking of that agreement. More power to them....and I wish them every success.
RIP Richard ...Loyaultie me Lie...Eileen

Hello Pansy. Yes, and I understand your point of view as well, and everyone else's. Unfortunately for me, I do still regard his bones as being him. OK, his body and soul have gone, but what is left is still him. Taking bits just makes me shudder. It was someone on the forum who reported the uni's wish to continue having access to him after his reburial. I don't know who now, but it seemed pretty definite. I know they (uni) say they will put back everything they've taken, but it seems it will be an ongoing thing. Put it back, get the next lot, put that back, and so on. I really do not want that to be the case. The whole notion of it offends my sensibilities. To me they've had more than enough time and opportunity (a free hand, by the sound of it  no joke intended) and it's time to leave him alone. But yes, research is necessary, and I am glad to benefit from it. Maybe that gives me double-standards, but I do not see why he has to be gone over and over to the nth degree. It sucks. However, enough from me. (Door closing softly) Sandra =^..^= From: pansydobersby Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:55 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA

Sandra wrote: "And, if it's true, they want to have access to his remains even after he has been reburied!" Well, that IS unacceptable, and I hope it won't happen.

Sandra, believe me, I do understand your point of view!

I suppose I'm just hoping that IF they conduct the research respectfully - which I obviously don't know, not knowing the details of it - they might stumble on some crucial information. Richard's brief reign is shrouded in so much mystery& no, his bones won't be able to tell us what happened to Edward's sons (among many other things), but like I said before, you never know what information may turn out to be important later on. For that reason I'm glad that his DNA is mapped out for future reference. I also hope someone with expertise on scoliosis is looking at his spine curvature and how it might have affected him in life, because it's such a big part of Richard's posthumous reputation, and there are STILL people thinking he was a 'hunchback'.

At any rate, I'd rather they take their samples now than after the reinterment. Of course, I'd have wished him to be buried for good by now, but as that's obviously not going to happen just yet for reasons independent of the research, I don't see the harm in continuing research, AS LONG AS the research is conducted in a respectful manner.

But then, I wouldn't mind the same thing being done to my remains, if my remains had any historical value at all! I just feel like research into his DNA is pretty much the least of the indignities Richard has suffered in this whole debacle.

Do we actually know that they're constantly 'picking away', by the way? I'd have thought they have taken whatever samples they need. You don't need much for this sort of research, after all.

Pansy

Well according to JAH these further tests "might tell us whether or not Richard had difficulty in digesting milk for example. It might tell us whether he had light brown hair, medium brown hair or dark brown hair, But is this really very valuable information...." You must judge for your self then whether these tests are worthy...
It's about time people woke up and smelt the coffee with regard to the university and their programme of further tests on Richard. Check out their motives...I feel they are on just one massive ego trip with their heads so far up their bottoms they can see daylight. I am sorry to be coarse but my God...can you not see from Richard's wish to finish Towton Chapel for the dead of that battle that this would have been the last thing he would have wished for his remains to be subjected to. I just feel so exasperated by the whole think now..which grows worse by the day I should probably take a break from it and the forum. There is nothing the little people who care about Richard can actually do in this protracted affair other than sign petitions...Eileen

Eileen wrote:"Well according to JAH these further tests "might tell us whether or not Richard had difficulty in digesting milk for example. It might tell us whether he had light brown hair, medium brown hair or dark brown hair, But is this really very valuable information...." You must judge for your self then whether these tests are worthy..."

But isn't all that discovered from the DNA that is being mapped out? They won't need another piece of bone to discover whether he was lactose intolerant, and yet another one to find out his eye colour, etc.

I'm not saying it's important to find out whether Richard was lactose intolerant or not - just that I do see value in his DNA being mapped out for future reference. When they've got the DNA, they've got the DNA, and I should hope they're not poking about at his bones further just for the fun of it.

Pansy

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I think - though I must add that throughout this discussion I've been talking about very small samples. I by no means think it's fine and dandy if they take a slice here, a morsel there, cut a thigh-bone here, pulverise a tooth here and there& no. I don't approve of destructive 'research' in the name of science, I hope I've made that clear.

Leicester and its university have done and said many other things that annoy me, and I know there are plenty of reasons to distrust their methods. I just don't think the potential new information *in itself* is useless or disrespectful. I don't think the mapping out of his DNA is inherently disrespectful. That's all.

What matters to me most is that Richard's final resting place honours him, and that he is re-interred honourably as befits an anointed king. And after that, left in peace.

Pansy

Well I think they might be Pansy....Sandra's description of 'lab fodder' sounds spot on to me.
Could someone who believes this further testing is reasonable please tell me what exactly are they hoping can be glea tests. It is not rocket science...what exactly can be expected to be discovered. Seriously....name it?
Someone raised a point about security. Well clearly the university were not concerned too much with security when they wanted to display the remains in LC.

Richard's remains, as we know, were discovered in August 2012...we are now in 2014...I reiterate once more that the University entered an agreement that Richard's remains would be taken to a religious house once the initial tests we carried out. They have reneged on this agreement and also it now appears with an agreement with Buckingham Palace. This is wrong on many levels. I'm finding it quite hard to grasp that there are some who do not see this as quite disgraceful and dishonorable, Maybe I'm old fashioned......but I'm really going over stuff I have said before so I'm probably going to stop here...as it's pointless. Eileen

Hi everyone,
I may be answering out of line/link if so I'm sorry.As far as I can remember a gentleman named Nic explained the genome testing to me on one of the Richard websites as something along these lines.If scientists are able to extract the necessary information/codes from their existing samples(of Richard),then they will not need other samples.To extract the genome they have to pulverise the samples they use.When finished(write ups re testing of research etc, which will take time) all remains of all samples plus Richard's other remains are to be reinterred all together.It also appears(I may be wrong) that scientists will not need to have future samples because they will be able to reproduce the genome artifically somehow ad infinitum.It will also probably be possible for it to be made available to other establishments for their own research etc for a sum. I'am not sure who would have the rights to this and don't wish to be inflammatory towards anyone in anyway.
Kathryn x

Hi everyone,
Sorry I think this has been already better covered by previous posts..
Kathryn x

For me it's not so much about the testing itself as it is about how this project has come about. Once again, no outside input (an ethics review by the UL for pete's sake, which stands to profit even more from the king's remains). No one disinterested, no one to say, hold on a minute, we don't treat any other monarchs like this. No one to say these are the remains of a known individual who did not consent to the use of his body in this way, no one to question whether or not the expected benefits of the testing are worth it to society. I for one think the reasons given are silly in the extreme, not to mention that the hope of understanding king Richard's personality from his DNA has very unsavory overtones. I also have a concern that in this day & age of molecular engineering, if there's real profit to be made we will be seeing the development of commercial uses for king Richard's sequences.

Admittedly, self-interest is not unknown to university ethics committees. I once minuted a meeting at King's College London, during which the attendees were asked if they could foresee any circumstances under which they'd refuse a donation. There was a long silence, and then someone - a distinguished doctor, knighted and now chairing a government commission - piped up with the words "If it came from the mafia?"

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: ajhibbard@... <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 11:33:27 PM

 

For me it's not so much about the testing itself as it is about how this project has come about. Once again, no outside input (an ethics review by the UL for pete's sake, which stands to profit even more from the king's remains). No one disinterested, no one to say, hold on a minute, we don't treat any other monarchs like this. No one to say these are the remains of a known individual who did not consent to the use of his body in this way, no one to question whether or not the expected benefits of the testing are worth it to society. I for one think the reasons given are silly in the extreme, not to mention that the hope of understanding king Richard's personality from his DNA has very unsavory overtones. I also have a concern that in this day & age of molecular engineering, if there's real profit to be made we will be seeing the development of commercial uses for king Richard's sequences.

You mirror my thoughts exactly, Pansy

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 10:44:42 PM

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I think - though I must add that throughout this discussion I've been talking about very small samples. I by no means think it's fine and dandy if they take a slice here, a morsel there, cut a thigh-bone here, pulverise a tooth here and there& no. I don't approve of destructive 'research' in the name of science, I hope I've made that clear.

Leicester and its university have done and said many other things that annoy me, and I know there are plenty of reasons to distrust their methods. I just don't think the potential new information *in itself* is useless or disrespectful. I don't think the mapping out of his DNA is inherently disrespectful. That's all.

What matters to me most is that Richard's final resting place honours him, and that he is re-interred honourably as befits an anointed king. And after that, left in peace.

Pansy

My friend from beyond makes the following points:

---------------

...while DNA tests may not add much to our knowledge of Richard, sequencing his genome would insure that science students the world over, hundreds of years hence, who couldn't easily find Britain on a map, will still know who Richard III was. And isotope testing, which nobody seems to have done yet, would tell us where he was and how well he was eating at every stage of his life. This in turn would tell us whether he and Edward and Hastings and Rivers really did have to live by catching rabbits in the woods when they were in exile, and it would tell us where he was living in his early teens, which would shed some light on whose squire he was when he was in training, which might in turn shed some light on political alliances.

[...]

If we ever find the bones of Richard of Eastwell, or a possible body of John of Gloucester, or any putative descendants of any of Richard's children, it will enable us to confirm whether they are really his descendants or not. It should make it much easier to tell conclusively whether the bodies in the urn are his nephews or not - and since it's virtually certain that they *aren't* his nephews that means that the DNA information could make a massive contribution towards clearing Richard from false accusation - more than anything else short of actually finding out what really did happen to his nephews. If the DNA of Edward IV is ever examined, the ability to compare it with Richard's will enable us to tell whether he was Richard's full or half brother, and therefore whether the rumours about Edward not being York's son were true. In the admittedly not very likely event of somebody finding and DNA-testing Anne Neville or her parents, the combination of her and Richard's genes might explain what Edward of Middleham died of - it might turn out for example that both parents were carrying recessive cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy genes, although healthy themselves.

Call me crazy but I don't see anything really unreasonable on that list. Some may object to the testing for parasites, but it was done from soil samples, not from Richard's bones. One might argue about the importance of investigating his teeth to establish his diet etc., but from the way I understood it, all of that is research that has already been done/started and is currently being finished. The only thing they seem to have planned for the future is that DNA sequencing.

I think mapping out the DNA sequence for future reference is actually the most important research they can do on his remains. Imagine, for instance, that they find Edward of Middleham or John of Gloucester one day and need to confirm it's him&? Like Kathryn said, once they've got the genome, there'd be no need for further samples or exhumations even in that scenario.

Just because the DNA sequence would also yield bits of trivia like possible lactose intolerance or eye colour, it doesn't mean the information wouldn't have other, more important applications - even ones we can't come up with with our current knowledge.

And I'm sorry to say, but if you look at it from another angle: if they DON'T do the DNA sequence before Richard is reburied - for lack of funding, or whatever - then that makes it more likely that he'll be exhumed eventually, should the need arise for further DNA samples in some future research. I think that, as they have the technology, they should just do it now and then leave him in peace for good. But that's just my opinion.

Of course, I agree with drajhtoo that there should be proper accountability and oversight in all of this.

Pansy

P.S. I don't think the commodification of the remains of non-monarchs and unnamed individuals is any less disgraceful. Only think of poor Ötzi put on display.

I must add as a P.P.S. that if we, the humankind, get to the point of having to worry about rogue molecular engineering being done from people's DNA samples, I'd say we'll have bigger problems than just Richard's DNA being misused...
Pansy

Maroonna, thank you for the great post. Your friend makes excellent points.
Pansy

Couldn't have put it better myself - it's not necessarily about the testing per se, but what it reflects about the whole situation. Well said!

Otzi is an un-named individual. This is a known person, and no-one- no-one other than Leicester University - has given permission or consent for these "tiny fragments" of remains to be further tested. The original agreement with the University was that only testing for identification purposes should be conducted; now with funding and international kudos in sight, Leicester grants itself permission to carry on regardless. That should be held up to public scrutiny and accountability immediately and all testing halted.

Mention is made of "tiny fragments" as if these are bone-chippings that have 'fallen off' (which they are not) and are somehow negligible and of no consequence because they are small. When tissue fragments of infants were retained by Alder Hey hospital in the 1990's, there was a public outcry and it all concerned "consent". Are any other monarchs of the realm allowed to be experimented on like this? Were Anne Mowbray's remains?

I am not anti-genomic testing, but I find it unnecessary in this case - I concur with drajhibbard's points about dubious "genetic explanations" for personality traits - and most importantly, it is being doing without wider consultation, against the wishes of surviving collateral descendants, and against the original contractual agreement concerning the remains and their treatment.

Colyngbourne, I know Ötzi is an unnamed individual - my point was simply that I don't find the disgraceful treatment of unnamed individuals (e.g. Ötzi's body on display in a museum) any less disgraceful than the disgraceful treatment of named individuals.

I think I'll bow out of this discussion now, for fear of being misunderstood: feelings run high on this issue, and only hope I haven't offended anyone by being pro genome mapping. Whatever Leicester's motives may currently be, I think it's an important and interesting project, for the reasons that Maroonna's friend so neatly summarised.

But that doesn't mean I'm not a religious person or that I don't believe in honouring the dead, because I do - far more than the average modern person, I'd say. It's not either/or. If I could afford it, I'd build a Chantry chapel for Richard and his family, complete with a monastery for the priests to live and work in. In fact, I swear here and now that if I'm ever rich enough, that's exactly what I'll do.

Pansy

No worries, Pansy - I do understand, and agree with some of your points. I am pro-genome mapping as a process but only with proper consent and consultation given - which in this case it hasn't been either sought or given.

Pansy...can I just say I hope you are not thinking I may have been offended because our opinions differ here, Although we do not see eye to eye on this particular subject it's not a problem is it?
And can I help you if you ever get around to building a chantry chapel for Richard and his family....even if it is just making the tea and coffee....:0). Eileen

This discussion is so passionate and honestly heartfelt on both sides, that the sooner we get to the judicial review, and hopefully a sensible decision, and Richard can finally be honourably laid to rest the better.
It is so unfortunate, though probably inevitable, that all of this confusion and contention has had to happen.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Fw: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 12:46:51 PM

No worries, Pansy - I do understand, and agree with some of your points. I am pro-genome mapping as a process but only with proper consent and consultation given - which in this case it hasn't been either sought or given.

On 26/02/2014 21:17, cherryripe.eileenb@... wrote:
>
> Seems to me that the University are a law unto themselves....poor
> Richard ..
Poor Richard indeed Eileen. Ant eh university didn't want to be involved
originally, they only came in reluctantly, thinking they were following
the ravings of a mad woman who didn't have a clue! Now of course both
Philippa and John have been swept under the carpet, or buried in the car
park one is tempted to say, and it was all the university's knowledge
that made the dig so successful!
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 26/02/2014 21:26, pansydobersby wrote:
Jess wrote:

"It ill behoves us as a society to try to prevent scientific investigations when we would all love to see some further research on the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey."

But we don't know who or what the bones in the urn are. We know the remains found in Leicester are King Richard.

The urn could contain a Roman girl for all we know and only modern techniques could show us.
Paul




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul...so unfair....well dishonest actually..it makes my blood boil ....Eileen

And that, Paul is what really makes me mad.............
Jess spitting chips...........

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 2:28:16 PM

On 26/02/2014 21:17, cherryripe.eileenb@... wrote:
>
> Seems to me that the University are a law unto themselves....poor
> Richard ..
Poor Richard indeed Eileen. Ant eh university didn't want to be involved
originally, they only came in reluctantly, thinking they were following
the ravings of a mad woman who didn't have a clue! Now of course both
Philippa and John have been swept under the carpet, or buried in the car
park one is tempted to say, and it was all the university's knowledge
that made the dig so successful!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

No, we don't, and I would love to see some scientific research to confirm
whether they are the princes, or IMO, probably not.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Richard's DNA
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 2:30:27 PM

On 26/02/2014 21:26, pansydobersby wrote:
Jess wrote:

"It ill behoves us as a society to try to prevent scientific investigations when we would all love to see some further research on the bones in the urn in Westminster Abbey."

But we don't know who or what the bones in the urn are. We know the remains found in Leicester are King Richard.

The urn could contain a Roman girl for all we know and only modern techniques could show us.
Paul




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I do not know if I remember that correctly, but I have it in my mind that when the remains were confirmed to be Richard's they said they would be reinterred after further tests had been made.Being an inquisitive person, I must confess that I was a little disappointed that there were no interesting results forthcoming since then.
And I don't remember anyone opposing to these plans at the time.
All that happened since then was this endless squabble as to where, when and how the re-interrement should
go ahead. Now the University is finally doing research a lot of people are offended.
For me there is no difference in the importance of treating human remains respectfully or allowing research
on them if it concerns a king or a complete unknown. I hope I will not be misunderstood as not caring for
Richard, which I heartily do,when I say so.
Eva

Maroona,
Whoever your friend from beyond is, thanks for his or her contribution to this discussion!
I often have a feeling that Richard is not as sentimental about his bones as most on this forum are.
Eva

Hi Eva,
When Richard's remains were discovered they were tested for proof of his identity as far as I can remember.These were duly completed and announced etc.Things were put on hold as to Richard's remains being re interred because of the Plantagenet Alliance questioning the validity of Richard's remains being re interred at Leicester Cathedral.I may have misinterpreted the exact terms/conditions etc but that is the general gist I hope.These later tests which have only been given approval ethically(and recently) by Leicester University's ethics panel are what is being disputed.They have only fairly recently been put forward which is why they have not been mentioned before.People are for or against the tests being done.Lots of the Richard III facebook pages are commeting on this and the issues/ethics behind this.The Society have just released a statement about all of this and the Society's stance on it.This has not been received favourably by some members.People feel certain aspects are not being taken into account that should be.There is more but you are probably better reading some of the previous comments and forming your own opinions.No one is disputing that Richard's and any ordinary person's remains should be treated any differently to each other and should both be shown the utmost respect and dignity.What is being disputed by some is the fact that he is an anointed sovereign and that this has certain significant issues with regard to the continuation of the tests and his not being removed to a place of sanctity until his re internment.These tests will also inevitably prolong the time of any re internment.I hope all this makes sense and I haven't made any mistakes.

I have been meaning to get in touch with you regarding you being upset about the reconstruction.I am of the opinion that The SoA portrait is the closest that we will come to seeing Richard as he was in 1485.His eyes are a blue grey and his hair is brown,He has a pale complexion.He may have had darker hair and he may have had a more rosy complexion.Although sources seem to state that his complexion was fairly pale.I appreciate that this was painted after his life time but I do believe it is a fair and accurate portrayal of him.If he was sending a copy to Joanna of Portugal he would not send a distorted portrait because if she had accepted she would have eventually, of course, met him.

With regard to the reconstruction I personally think Professor Caroline Wilkinson was the absolute best person that could have been chosen to do the reconstruction.I may be biased! It is a reconstruction with average measurements of a person the age that Richard was.His eyebrows may or may not have been as pronounced.His portraits do present a more smooth eyebrow line.I think and hope that people will be aware that it is the reconstruction is an approximation. I have not forgotten I owe you some portraits.I'm hoping to send them to you this week-end.Sorry for the delay I have a bit going on at the moment and also have to rely on technical help from the children to get things delivered.

Kathryn x

Katherine ...a very good, fair and accurate summing up of the situation as it is at the moment...Eileen

Eva...'for me there is no difference in the importance of treating human remains respectfully or allowing research on them if it concerns a king or a complete unknown'....absolutely....it matters not (and I said as much in a message posted on here quite some time ago) if it is the remains of a King or some poor unfortunate destitute homeless person found dead in a cardboard box down an alley...and I'm sure everyone who is concerned about the situation as it is with Richard's remains feels the same way...Eileen

Hi Kathryn,

Thank you for summing up the situation!
But,what would interest me is if anyone on the forum remembers a statement of the University after the confirmation of the results, that Richard's remains will in dew course be respectfully reinterred after
they have undergone further research. For that is what I remember. There was of course no clarification what research they were planning to do. But as they also researched the male line, and for the confirmation of the identity they just needed the mitocondrial DNA, it is no wonder that the scientific interest of the Uni did not end
at the 4. february last year.
I know that the research they now embark on was not mentioned previously. But that does not mean Leicester Uni did not hope they could do it one day and now as they have the funding for it took the further steps to start the sequencing of the genome.
I am totally agreed upon everything you say about the SOA portrait.
But the facial reconstruction is a different matter altogether.As I want to elaborate more detailed on this
and think that it is OT under the heading "Richard's DNA", I will start a new topic for it
Eva

Hi Eva,
You are welcome.
I don't know about the University statement .I don't think I was a member then.I'm not sure about the male line results.I know they were planning/doing those tests but I haven't heard about any results.
The possibility of genome tests has arisen since the Judiciary became involved and the burial process was put on hold.The funding was then found/given to do this.I can't give you a lot of detail or information about all of this.It has been discussed on the forum and various Richard III web/fb pages.So hopefully someone will post on the forum with more information.
I look forward to your new topic.
Kathryn x

Carol (F?) wrote :

"Thanks so much Sandra - together hopefully all this will make a difference. I'm trying to push both petitions as widely as possible, and trying to make sure UK people know they can sign both (the Avaaz one also has the advantage that we can stop it and deliver it when we feel it's reached a goodly number). Fantastic to see the LFR statement today as well - I think the first strong statement they have made against the powers that be in Leicester. That needs to be circulated as much as poss too. I don't know whether you're aware but Dr John Ashdown-Hill has put both petition links on his website too, and emailed me to let me know about yours. Best wishes, Carol"

Carol T (responds):

I'm also happy to see the LFR statement. I hadn't realized that the testing was in violation of the original agreement. Personally, I don't mind their analyzing his entire genome, assuming that they use the DNA originally extracted, but I find gleeful announcements that he had roundworms (who didn't, in those days?) distasteful at best. Unfortunately, there's not much that those of us in the U.S. can do about it. Most people I talk to have never heard of Richard III, not even Shakespeare's imaginary villain.

Carol (T)

Hi CarolYes, I'm afraid it was troublemaker me who posted that! I don't come on here often but was alerted to the petition that Sandra started and that it could only be signed by UK residents/citizens. Hence setting up the Avaaz one which can be signed by everyone anywhere. I've shifted the focus of it slightly to reflect the fact that the genome testing is obviously underway and the extra samples needed for it were already taken, probably before the announcement. So yes, more material has been taken from Richard's bones and/or teeth than just that used for the original identification. So the petition now calls generally for the original agreement to be honoured. If you can sign it, and any of your friends who feel they can, it will at least show the strength of feeling among people worldwide. The Looking for Richard team made it into the national press today, albeit not very accurately represented - see comments from Dr Ashdown-Hill and Annette Carson below. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/university-of-leicester-criticised-over-destructive-tests-on-remains-of-richard-iii-9169191.html)Many people have expressed concern over potential commercial use of the genome and the financial benefits it could bring to the university, not simply the testing per se, although that and the extensive use of photographs of the remains are totally against the original agreement, and the agreement between the LFR and Buckingham Palace. It's a concern to me that these facts aren't more widely known among members of the Society - but there seems to have been over-effective gatekeeping with regard to anything that might be seen as in any way criticizing the authorities in Leicester.Best wishes, Carol FW

Hi Carol,
I have tried clicking on the like button for your petition postings with regard to the article on Richard III in The Independant but for some reason it will not allow me to do so.
Kathryn x

Speaking of Richard's appearance:

The story of the Countess of Desmond having danced with Richard at Edward's court when she was a young girl, and then told Sir George Buck about it (and about how handsome Richard and Edward were), could well be true. It's quite possible, so long as you assume three things: -- She wasn't the countess when she danced with Richard but became countess much later (a virtual certainty, as one of the few constants in her various biographies is that she received her title via marriage, though exactly when the marriage occurred is up for debate: http://www.historyireland.com/early-modern-history-1500-1700/the-old-countess-the-geraldine-knight-and-the-lady-antiquarian-a-conspiracy-theory-revisited/ ) . -- She was a very young girl when she danced with Richard (quite likely). -- Buck was a very young boy when she told him about it (definitely possible). If she was six when she danced with Richard (probably the youngest she could have been and still remember it clearly), and Buck was six when she told him about it, she would only need to have been 90 when he met her, not 140. And it presents a rather charming picture of Richard putting himself out to amuse a child, and not caring if he looked silly doing it.

Tamara