Petitions and Positions

Hi everyone,
Glad everyone is getting petitions and signatures organised for the various issues regarding Richard.I think that The Queen and the Richard III Society cannot comment on these issues for various reasons.The burial problem is to be decided by the Judiciary and therefore can not be commented upon because of potentially influencing the said decision etc.With regard to the genetic petitions the Society is representative of Richard III and the/its members.Some members may agree with certain things and others may differ.Hence the Society's neutralityIf it put forward one petition it would have to allow all other petitions which could involve high contention.The Society does not "own" (nor does the Queen) Richard's remains and therefore they do not have any legality with regards to what processes,procedures etc are carried out in the name of scientific research. The Judiciary being the arbitrators once again. Difficult though it is for all concerned the Queen and the Society must and should remain neutral. The best way for individuals with mutual views to put forward any concerns and reach a large percentage of the public is to get the petitions publicised via the major TV channels,radio and the internet/Facebook and Twitter. Good luck to everyone who is doing this and taking the time and effort to place these issues in the public domain
Kathryn x

Hi Kathryn, many thanks for your comments and I agree with much of what you've said. One point I've struggled with throughout, though (as I know have many others with whom I 'talk' on Facebook and Twitter), is the fact that though the Society apparently feel constrained by the legal proceedings, the authorities in Leicester clearly don't - and they have all the cards, and most of the money, media (local at least) and power in their hands. Sub judice doesn't prevent them from denigrating any attempt to question the 'right' they have to do anything in this situation, from putting out messages that suggest a Leicester burial has always been a fait accompli and never required a wider consultation, to the fiction that somehow everything they are doing is in accordance with 'best archaeological practice', etc. As far as that last is concerned, as a former archaeologist I have had no qualms about questioning why, if as they claim best practice is to bury someone in the nearest consecrated ground, the other burials from Greyfriars are not going to be reinterred in the Cathedral. [to be cont.]

[cont]The Society are seen as in many ways going along with this, while hiding behind a veil of 'neutrality' - which allowed posting of the new Cathedral website a couple of weeks ago, with all its claims about why Richard should be buried there, because 'it would be of interest' to members and they would 'get upset' if they didn't see it (details were also emailed out), but not details of the Looking For Richard website that was set up the same day - because, as I was informed when I asked a couple of days later, the LFR team had not asked for it to be publicized, despite my suggesting members would be equally upset about not seeing that. It was eventually posted a few days later, but details weren't emailed to members. Will the same happen with the LFR statement? I mentioned it in a comment on the FB page yesterday, and have now been blocked from using the page, despite being a member. I'm really sorry for the rant - if you've made it this far! I'm certainly trying to do what you suggest as regards the media, along with lots of other people in the same situation, but it is so hard when we're up against the greater clout of the Leicester 'cabal'. (Such a shame, when using the shorthand 'Leicester', we can be seen to be doing down the city and its people - never intended.) With all best wishes, Carol

Hi Carol(jfw)
Thank you for replying to my post.I do not think you are ranting you are just passionate as is everyone who is a Richardian (whether they are a Society member or not).I have not been a member for very long. I only put forward reasons why the Queen and the Society may not be able to express an opinion.I have read quite a lot of the news items that have been released by the various groups from Leicester and like everyone else have my opinions.The same with the groups that are advocating Richard be buried in York Minster.If any one is being underhand in any way it will reflect upon them and no one else.The Judiciary will take an impartial view I am sure and decide what is legally the best option and place for Richard III's remains to be laid to rest.I wish everyone the very best with their petitions and all their good and caring intentions.I was completely unaware of any petitions earlier on last year until they had closed and I strongly believe that the best place for them to be seen/heard about is in all the News programmes and formats.
With regard to the Cathedral website and the Society I would think that they were being purely informative for members to draw their own conclusions.As to the Looking For Richard website page there are links but not an affiliation like there are with the various and widespread branches of the Richard III Society.The Looking For Richard group may want their own format,agenda and therefore prefer to do their own publicity etc.I realise this might not be a very good analysis of the facts but I hope it is helpful.
Kathryn x

Makes me die, the last thing The Richard the Third Society - that's the RICHARD THE THIRD Society folks - should be in Richard matters is neutral!
So angry with their sitting on their hands I may have to drive over to Canterbury and spit on Morton's tomb again!
Paul

On 26/02/2014 17:18, cfellinghamwebb@... wrote:
[cont]The Society are seen as in many ways going along with this, while hiding behind a veil of 'neutrality' - which allowed posting of the new Cathedral website a couple of weeks ago, with all its claims about why Richard should be buried there, because 'it would be of interest' to members and they would 'get upset' if they didn't see it (details were also emailed out), but not details of the Looking For Richard website that was set up the same day - because, as I was informed when I asked a couple of days later, the LFR team had not asked for it to be publicized, despite my suggesting members would be equally upset about not seeing that. It was eventually posted a few days later, but details weren't emailed to members. Will the same happen with the LFR statement? I mentioned it in a comment on the FB page yesterday, and have now been blocked from using the page, despite being a member. I'm really sorry for the rant - if you've made it this far! I'm certainly trying to do what you suggest as regards the media, along with lots of other people in the same situation, but it is so hard when we're up against the greater clout of the Leicester 'cabal'. (Such a shame, when using the shorthand 'Leicester', we can be seen to be doing down the city and its people - never intended.) With all best wishes, Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Totally agree with you on this one Paul, if the Richard the Third Society can't speak up for Richard who can, I am sick to death of the so called neutrality put about by Dr Phil Stone. Time to support Richard.