BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Hi Sandra
Good and apposite message. I think - hope - it's probably quiet on this board because people don't wish to appear disparaging of the sensibilities of others, whichever side of the debate they're on. Like you, I'm just relieved there's a conclusion.
Jonathan

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 13:16
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made. So, it is going to be Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM To: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM To: Subject: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Hi Sandra
Good and apposite message. I think - hope - it's probably quiet on this board because people don't wish to appear disparaging of the sensibilities of others, whichever side of the debate they're on. Like you, I'm just relieved there's a conclusion.
Jonathan


From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 13:16
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made. So, it is going to be Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM To: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM To: Subject: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

I agree, it is like quibbling over who gets Granny’s jewelry, only writ large. After a year, I think it is time to bury the hatchet, and let him be buried!

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 7:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York’s favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard’s final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don’t misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made.

So, it is going to be Leicester . After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester . But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he’ll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester ). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York . Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.

Loyaulte me lie.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: SandraMachin

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM

To:

Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

You’re the first to post, Jan. That I’ve seen anyway. So we’re back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM

To:

Subject: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

Jan here.
Leicester it is ; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Just to say I feel the same way as everyone else who as posted. I felt a preference for York Minster but was unhappy about the acrimony and delay caused by the appeal, and now just feel relieved that the burial can go ahead.

Marie

Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

I thought you were perfectly clear on that. And many of us, I'm sure, feel the same way. Though I would have preferred York, I'm not upset that the decision was in Leicester's favor. I just want them to get on with burying him! Gilda On May 23, 2014, at 8:16 AM, 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] wrote:


I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made. So, it is going to be Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM To: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM To: Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Marie I'm sure you're the person who might know. Who is this Sir Robert Hildyard mentioned by their lordships in their resume of Richard's reign? He is the only person they mention as having supported the coronation of Richard and been rewarded by him. I have checked the index of most of my Ricardian books and can find no mention of him. Where did their lordships find him??

Jennie

Marie I'm sure you're the person who might know. Who is this Sir Robert Hildyard whom their lordships mention as having supported the coronation of Richard and been rewarded by him? I have not heard of him and I have checked the index in most of my Ricardian books and can find no mention of him. Where did their lordships find him? (I'm referring to their resume of Richard's life & reign.)

Jennie

I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1

However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight.

As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.

Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been reappointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.

Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.

Marie

I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1

However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight.

As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.

Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been reappointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.

Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.

Marie

I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1

However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight.

As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.

Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been rea ppointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.

Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

It was Robert Hildyard the Younger - son of Robert Hildyard the elder the JP - who died in 1502; RH the Elder died in the late 1480s. According to my notes taken from an article by Keith Dockray in Ricardian no 83, it was Robert the Elder who married a Hastings, and she was a sister of Sir Hugh Hastings who appears frequently in the York city records - not related to Lord Hastings, at least not at all closely. I know the de la Sees were another East Riding family retained by the Percys. If you follow the A2A link in my previous post you will find much more information.

Marie

Thank you so much. He certainly does seem an odd choice for their lordships. Is anyone on friendly terms with them to ask?

Jennie