I'm back!

Hi, All! And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I noticed that in a recent interview, Vanessa Roe of the Alliance referred
to Richard as Richard of York. As he was never known as this, I can
only imagine it was an attempt to emphasise York's claim to him. While I do not
take sides in any of this, I do think that it is another example of how
inaccuracies enter into things. Richard's father was Richard of York, and Edward
IV's second son could have been called that too. But our Richard, while he was
of the House of York, was Richard of Gloucester. I went to great
lengths recently to see that this very inaccuracy was corrected on the blurb of
my book. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me as well! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an
appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more
importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb
already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the
summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left
Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever
doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne
Tournier jltournier60@... []"
<> wrote:
Hi,
All!
And I'm enjoying
the discussion - what I've seen of it!
Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that
the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or "Historians" cannot be bothered to check on little things like dates!

On May 26, 2014, at 4:27 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H


On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:


Hi, All!
And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi, Hilary! Ah, it's good to be back! I of course have been chuckling at the discussion on another thread of poor, paranoid HT! Regarding the launching of an appeal  regardless of any feeling as to where Richard should be laid to rest, I do think it is time for the reburial to proceed. It appears from what I have read that the reburial will not take place until next Spring. I fear that all this time, when not being tested, Richard's bones have been lying in a meager cardboard box. L Perhaps I am wrong  I hope so! On a more hopeful note  I do see the Cathedral Fabrics Commission recommended a redesign of Richard's tomb to be more consistent with the ambience of Leicester Cathedral. I hope that means that the tomb will more closely resemble the lovely design which was sponsored by the Lost-in-Castles people, which I thought was almost ideal. (In contrast to the design desired by the Cathedral itself, described by one lady as  a piece of Stilton perched hopefully on a doily. J We can always hope! Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Didn’t they spell “Fotheringay” [sic] wrong? Isn’t it supposed to be “Fotheringhay”? Something to do with a place where hay is harvested, I think. However, one thing I liked is that they endeavoured to be at least neutral regarding Richard’s life and career, if not actually positive. That is a hopeful sign. Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 8:37 AMTo: <>Subject: Re: I'm back! Or "Historians" cannot be bothered to check on little things like dates!On May 26, 2014, at 4:27 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote: Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, All! And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed it briefly just now, I couldn't find it), that by virtue of an application by the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe, however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won't have to pay the Defendants legal costs. If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well. Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I understand the PA are not going to incur any costs, but in order to lodge
an appeal, they would have to have proper grounds and probably new submissions,
not simply that they do not like the verdict. I do not think they do have
anything new to submit. The decision was that the original licence was issued
correctly and nothing further should have been done. The responsibility was and
still is that of Leicester's uni team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his
re-burial. As the reasons for this decision are listed quite categorically, and
do not seem arguable, I do not think an appeal would be accepted. I'm not a
legal eagle, but this is how I read it all.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
To:
Subject: RE: I'm back!

I read
somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed
it briefly just now, I couldn't find it), that by virtue of an application by
the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is
responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs
on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most
cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case
that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to
pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe,
however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will
be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won't
have to pay the Defendants legal costs.

If that is the
case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an
appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps
paying later as well.

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L.
Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all
things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26,
2014 6:27 AMTo:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] I'm back!


Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention
in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance
have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must
have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the
documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things
wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor
Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne
Tournier jltournier60@...
[]" <>
wrote:



Hi,
All!

And I'm
enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that
the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With
God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi, Sandra! Well, I am a retired barrister and solicitor, but practiced in Nova Scotia, not the UK. In general, you're right, you can't just appeal because you don't like the decision. You have to have grounds of appeal, usually based on some error of law of the trier of fact. But the system is set up to discourage appeals willy-nilly. Also, what you wrote about them having to make new submissions is true; the PA couldn't just repeat the same grounds it used in the first instance, at the High Court level. Usually, the grounds would be something like, The learned judges of the High Court erred in law in their application of the decision in the Tameside case to the case at bar, and things like that. And that the decision of the High Court was so flawed that it should be overturned and the decision of the Appeal Court (if that is the proper venue for an appeal) substituted for it, or if they don't have that power, to send it back to the High Court for reconsideration. The odds are always against an appeal succeeding, and having gone this far once, they may just want to walk away at this point. That is often the case, and expense, the possibility that at the next level they might be liable for payment of costs, and the odds against success are often the deciding factors. From my point of view, although I certainly understood from the git-go that the intention was that Richard's bones would be reinterred in the Leicester Cathedral, I don't exactly understand why the University should have been able to make a binding decision, and if you notice, the different documents along the way speak of efforts to bring in other parties for some consultation, and the University (i.e. Richard Buckley) apparently vetoed all of them. And I *do* think that the case is unique, given that it was King Richard III and not Joe Blow from Kokomo who was being exhumed and reburied. Another thing  it came up afterward that the License wasn't clear, because it mentioned the bodies (six were dealt with by the License, I believe) might be reburied in three different locations. The response was that it should be read along with the application for the license, which spoke of reburial of Richard's remains in the Cathedral. But I am not sure that there is anything in the License specifically incorporating the terms of the application. Oh, one other perhaps minor point . . . the Court states that the car park was unconsecrated ground. But surely it was consecrated when Richard was laid to rest there. Were the monasteries, etc. unconsecrated when they were dissolved under Henry VIII? At the least, doesn't that raise again the possibility that a *funeral* rather than just a *reburial* might be more appropriate in Richard's case? (The argument is that the Friars would have conducted some sort of funeral service, but I don't think we actually know that, and it certainly looks like Richard's body was at the least dumped unceremoniously in the grave.) Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:44 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! I understand the PA are not going to incur any costs, but in order to lodge an appeal, they would have to have proper grounds and probably new submissions, not simply that they do not like the verdict. I do not think they do have anything new to submit. The decision was that the original licence was issued correctly and nothing further should have been done. The responsibility was and still is that of Leicester's uni team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his re-burial. As the reasons for this decision are listed quite categorically, and do not seem arguable, I do not think an appeal would be accepted. I'm not a legal eagle, but this is how I read it all. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PMTo: Subject: RE: I'm back! I read somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed it briefly just now, I couldn't find it), that by virtue of an application by the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe, however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won't have to pay the Defendants legal costs. If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - [email protected] jltournier@..."With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, All!And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - [email protected] jltournier@..."With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great points Johanne! I had no idea you were a barrister/solicitor! I am just amazed by the many learned folks in this group. I am always
impressed with the scholarship, points of view, and thinking!


From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:54 AM
To:
Subject: RE: I'm back!



Hi, Sandra!

Well, I am a retired barrister and solicitor, but practiced in
Nova Scotia , not the
UK . In general, you’re right, you can’t just appeal because you don’t like the decision. You have to have grounds of appeal, usually based on some “error of law” of the “trier of fact.” But the system is
set up to discourage appeals willy-nilly. Also, what you wrote about them having to make new submissions is true; the PA couldn’t just repeat the same grounds it used in the first instance, at the High Court level. Usually, the grounds would be something like,
“The learned judges of the High Court erred in law in their application of the decision in the
Tameside case to the case at bar,” and things like that. And that the decision of the High Court was so flawed that it should be overturned and the decision of the
Appeal Court (if that is the proper venue for an appeal) substituted for it, or if they don’t have that power, to send it back to the High Court for reconsideration. The odds are always
against an appeal succeeding, and having gone this far once, they may just want to walk away at this point. That is often the case, and expense, the possibility that at the next level they might be liable for payment of costs, and the odds against success
are often the deciding factors.

From my point of view, although I certainly understood from the git-go that
the intention was that Richard’s bones would be reinterred in the Leicester Cathedral, I don’t exactly understand why the University should have been able to make a binding decision, and if you notice, the different documents along the way speak of efforts
to bring in other parties for some consultation, and the University (i.e. Richard Buckley) apparently vetoed all of them. And I *do* think that the case is unique, given that it was King Richard III and not Joe
Blow from Kokomo who was being exhumed and reburied.

Another thing – it came up afterward that the License wasn’t clear, because
it mentioned the bodies (six were dealt with by the License, I believe) might be reburied in three different locations. The response was that it should be read along with the application for the license, which spoke of reburial of Richard’s remains in the
Cathedral. But I am not sure that there is anything in the License specifically incorporating the terms of the application.


Oh, one other perhaps minor point . . . the Court states that the car park was
unconsecrated ground. But surely it was consecrated when Richard was laid to rest there. Were the monasteries, etc. unconsecrated when they were dissolved under Henry VIII? At the least, doesn’t that raise again the possibility that a *funeral*
rather than just a *reburial* might be more appropriate in Richard’s case? (The argument is that the Friars would have conducted some sort of funeral service, but I don’t think we actually know that, and it certainly
looks like Richard’s body was at the least dumped unceremoniously in the grave.)

Loyaulte,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of
Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!



I understand the PA are not going to incur any costs, but in order to lodge an appeal,
they would have to have proper grounds and probably new submissions, not simply that they do not like the verdict. I do not think they do have anything new to submit. The decision was that the original licence was issued correctly and nothing further should
have been done. The responsibility was and still is that of
Leicester ’s uni team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his re-burial. As the reasons for this decision are listed quite categorically, and do not seem arguable, I do not think an appeal would be accepted. I’m not a legal eagle, but this is how
I read it all.

Sandra
=^..^=


From:
mailto:

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM

To:


Subject: RE: I'm back!



I read somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when
I skimmed it briefly just now, I couldn’t find it), that by virtue of an application by the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs on the proceedings
to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to pay legal costs incurred by the other parties
who were successful. I believe, however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the
Alliance will be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won’t have to pay the Defendants legal costs.

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the
Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of
Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:

Subject: Re: I'm back!



Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the
Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in
1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H


On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:



Hi, All!

And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,


Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...

or
jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of
Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Johanne.
Thank you for such a lengthy and exceedingly clear explanation. I'm sure it
would all be the same here. Well, the as near the same as makes no difference.
The whole thing with poor Richard is a mess, because no one on the Leicester
side, or in the Ministry of Justice, thought he really would be found. Only
Philippa, JA-H & Co felt convinced. But, I suppose, that doesn't make the
licence invalid. If the terms were met, then it stands.
I can't think what is meant about the car park not being consecrated
ground. No, it isn't consecrated now, but yes, it certainly was in 1485. That is
surely the point. Whether or not there was a proper service, of whatever kind,
he was laid to rest in a respectful place (if not with complete respect) in
Greyfriars. There had at the very least to be appropriate prayers said over him.
They couldn't possibly not, surely? Would it not be sinful to put a body close
to the high altar and fail to say anything?
I don't know about the six bodies and three different places. I did read
through the whole thing, and remember getting to that, but not the specific
wording. I just seem to recall that if Richard was found, they said from the
outset that he would be buried in Leicester Cathedral.
If only the powers at Leicester hadn't come over the way they did at the
beginning, perhaps none of this would have happened. The bad publicity started
up with shoving him under a slab', keeping him in a box', taking bits of him'
and even that there was to be a way of getting into his tomb after he'd been
laid to rest, and still taking bits. It really has been awful. The
press, of course, has had a field day. And now it's come to this, with virtual
civil war among Richard's supporters. Richard is Richard, wherever he's
interred, and to me that is all that should really matter. He is all
that should matter. I'll certainly be going to Leicester to pay my respects. I'd
go to York, Westminster, Fotheringhay, wherever. He's worth far more
than any of this infighting. What are we all thinking of? We have him
again, and should be thankful for it, not turning our backs because we don't
like the court decision.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:54 PM
To:
Subject: RE: I'm back!

Hi,
Sandra!

Well, I am a
retired barrister and solicitor, but practiced in Nova Scotia, not the UK. In
general, you're right, you can't just appeal because you don't like the
decision. You have to have grounds of appeal, usually based on some error of
law of the trier of fact. But the system is set up to discourage appeals
willy-nilly. Also, what you wrote about them having to make new submissions is
true; the PA couldn't just repeat the same grounds it used in the first
instance, at the High Court level. Usually, the grounds would be something like,
The learned judges of the High Court erred in law in their application of the
decision in the Tameside case to the case at bar, and things like that.
And that the decision of the High Court was so flawed that it should be
overturned and the decision of the Appeal Court (if that is the proper venue for
an appeal) substituted for it, or if they don't have that power, to send it back
to the High Court for reconsideration. The odds are always against an appeal
succeeding, and having gone this far once, they may just want to walk away at
this point. That is often the case, and expense, the possibility that at the
next level they might be liable for payment of costs, and the odds against
success are often the deciding factors.

From my point
of view, although I certainly understood from the git-go that the intention was
that Richard's bones would be reinterred in the Leicester Cathedral, I don't
exactly understand why the University should have been able to make a binding
decision, and if you notice, the different documents along the way speak of
efforts to bring in other parties for some consultation, and the University
(i.e. Richard Buckley) apparently vetoed all of them. And I *do* think
that the case is unique, given that it was King Richard III and not Joe Blow
from Kokomo who was being exhumed and reburied.

Another thing 
it came up afterward that the License wasn't clear, because it mentioned the
bodies (six were dealt with by the License, I believe) might be reburied in
three different locations. The response was that it should be read along with
the application for the license, which spoke of reburial of Richard's remains in
the Cathedral. But I am not sure that there is anything in the License
specifically incorporating the terms of the application.

Oh, one other
perhaps minor point . . . the Court states that the car park was unconsecrated
ground. But surely it was consecrated when Richard was laid to rest there. Were
the monasteries, etc. unconsecrated when they were dissolved under Henry VIII?
At the least, doesn't that raise again the possibility that a *funeral*
rather than just a *reburial* might be more appropriate in Richard's
case? (The argument is that the Friars would have conducted some sort of funeral
service, but I don't think we actually know that, and it certainly looks like
Richard's body was at the least dumped unceremoniously in the
grave.)

Loyaulte,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L.
Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all
things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26,
2014 11:44 AMTo:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] I'm back!


I understand the PA are not going
to incur any costs, but in order to lodge an appeal, they would have to have
proper grounds and probably new submissions, not simply that they do not like
the verdict. I do not think they do have anything new to submit. The decision
was that the original licence was issued correctly and nothing further should
have been done. The responsibility was and still is that of Leicester's uni
team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his re-burial. As the reasons for this
decision are listed quite categorically, and do not seem arguable, I do not
think an appeal would be accepted. I'm not a legal eagle, but this is how I read
it all.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51
PM
To:

Subject: RE: I'm
back!


I read
somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed
it briefly just now, I couldn't find it), that by virtue of an application by
the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is
responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs
on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most
cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case
that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to
pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe,
however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will
be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won't
have to pay the Defendants legal costs.
If that is the
case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an
appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps
paying later as well.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L.
Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all
things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AMTo: Subject:
Re: I'm back!

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention
in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance
have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must
have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the
documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things
wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor
Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H
On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne
Tournier jltournier60@...
[]" <>
wrote:


Hi,
All!
And I'm
enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!
Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that
the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With
God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi JoanneWelcome back, we've missed you. Elaine

Hi, Elaine!Thanks for the welcome back! I've missed you and everyone here, too! It's good to be back, and I hope that now I will have a chance once again to do some serious Ricardian reading. I also have to renew my membership in the Society! TTFN J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:21 PMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! Hi JoanneWelcome back, we've missed you. Elaine

It just seems like last week that we talked;-)G

Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have
delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have
been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about
seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he
deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...
[] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I
read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance
have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The
legal profession must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and
even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things
wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence
died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to
inaccuracies. H


On Sunday,
25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
<> wrote:


Hi, All!
And I’m
enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen
of it!
Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case - is there any possibility that
the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal
the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...
"With
God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

And that ghastly romance writer has
coined the phrase for the WOTR of The Cousins Wars, which she
claims is what it was called, in spite of there being no mention
of it anywhere before her novels!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:40, 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[] wrote:
I noticed that in a recent interview, Vanessa Roe of the
Alliance referred to Richard as Richard of York. As he was never
known as this, I can only imagine it was an attempt to
emphasise York’s claim to him. While I do not take sides in
any of this, I do think that it is another example of how
inaccuracies enter into things. Richard’s father was Richard
of York, and Edward IV’s second son could have been called
that too. But our Richard, while he was of the
House of York, was Richard of Gloucester. I went to great
lengths recently to see that this very inaccuracy was
corrected on the blurb of my book. If I’m wrong, please feel
free to correct me as well! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm
back!


Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one
article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But
whether the Alliance have the will, or more
importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession
must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the
documentation and even in the summary on Richard
someone got at least two things wrong - they said he
left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482.
Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H


On
Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@...
[]"
<>
wrote:


Hi, All!
And I’m
enjoying the discussion - what
I’ve seen of it!
Without
expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case - is there
any possibility that the
Plantagenet Alliance might
appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email
- jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...
"With
God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Only other place I have seen it called the Cousins War is in the ladybird children's book series from the 60's on Warwick The Kingmaker.

Not knowing anything about how hereditary titles work i was just wondering - when Edward on becoming King (Ed IV) absorbed the title of Duke of York into the crown - would that not then make Richard when he became King also Duke of York.Or if his nephew, Edward's son Richard, was made Duke of York - and then declared illegitimate so had no right to the title would it then revert back to our Richard.I know he never went by this title but was just curious as to whether he was entitled to if he had wanted to????

I don't know all that much either, kcflet, and I suppose if Richard had
wanted to, yes, but I can't see that once king he would ever choose to be known
by a lesser title. The whole point of being king was that one became top dog and
had that nice gold shiny thing on one's head. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: kcflet
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!
Not knowing anything about how hereditary titles work i was just wondering -
when Edward on becoming King (Ed IV) absorbed the title of Duke of York into the
crown - would that not then make Richard when he became King also Duke of York.
Or if his nephew, Edward's son Richard, was made Duke of York - and then
declared illegitimate so had no right to the title would it then revert back to
our Richard.
I know he never went by this title but was just curious as to whether he
was entitled to if he had wanted to????

LOL, George! Welcome back to you, too! J Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:21 PMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! It just seems like last week that we talked;-)G

George welcome back! Does indeed seem like only yesterday. :) H

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes. BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:
Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have
delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have
been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about
seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he
deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...
[] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I
read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance
have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The
legal profession must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and
even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things
wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence
died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to
inaccuracies. H


On Sunday,
25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
mailto: wrote:


Hi, All!
And I'm
enjoying the discussion - what I've seen
of it!
Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case - is there any possibility that
the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal
the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...
"With
God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain
who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..

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:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!


I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale
paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:



Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness
he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will,
or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong -
they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
mailto: wrote:



Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,


Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



--

Richard Liveth Yet!

You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as very sympathetic, despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should be? H On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain
who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..
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:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!
I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.
BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale
paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:
Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness
he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will,
or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong -
they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H
On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
mailto: wrote:
Hi, All!
And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--

Richard Liveth Yet!

You are a trooper&&.I simply could not make it through. I do hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large screen, something which captures the
true Richard. With the many gifted actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so very long!



From: [mailto:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!


You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard
came over as very sympathetic, despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should
be? H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain
pbain@... []" <>
wrote:



My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and
I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..


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:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!



I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale
paul.bale@... []"
<>
wrote:



Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness
he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will,
or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong -
they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
mailto:
wrote:



Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,


Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



--

Richard Liveth Yet!

I have to say I agree with you. .Aneurin Barnard was probably the best thing about The White Queen.He did a quite splendid job.Jess
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []Sent: 27/05/2014 16:27To: Subject: Re: I'm back!

You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as very sympathetic, despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should be? H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..
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:] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back!
I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.
BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:
Please Johanne, don't go there!These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!PaulOn 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.
BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H
On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:
Hi, All!
And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?
Loyaulte,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Richard Liveth Yet!


Posted by: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply via web post
"
Reply to sender
"
Reply to group
"
Start a New Topic
"
Messages in this topic (24)
Visit Your Group
New Members 1
" Privacy " Unsub
[The entire original message is not included.]

Jess and Hilary,I totally agree with you about Aneurin Barnard. It is only a pity that that the series was otherwise,let's say, rather disappointing. But for him it is worth to give it a try.Eva

As everyone here knows, I have been
trying for years! Was getting close until White Queen, on the back
of high sales of paperbacks, reared it's ugly head on the BBC.
"Wars of the Roses? No. Just done that haven't they? How about
another Tudor film?"
My script is out there, and getting a lot of very good feedback,
but money people are nervous of the cost, especailly as they say,
it has just been done. No amount of my screaming "But it hasn't
been Done! Only a female novelists innaccurate version of the
womens side!" seems to be having any effect.
I dreamed of winning the Lottery the other week. Only 150 million.
When asked what I would do I said " My first millions will go to
signing up the two actors I want to play Richard and Anne. Then I
will hire a producer and using the 100 million start working out a
schedule to film!"
Hey ho....
Paul



On 27/05/2014 16:32, Pamela Bain pbain@...
[] wrote:
You
are a trooper…….I simply could not make it through. I do
hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large
screen, something which captures the true Richard. With the
many gifted actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it
is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so
very long!



From:
[mailto:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm
back!


You
know, despite all, I made myself watch the last
episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it)
and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as
very sympathetic, despite all the obvious
inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the
real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does
that with all of us? It was the rest of the
characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps
how it should be? H

On
Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain
pbain@...
[]" <>
wrote:



My
sweet husband, thinking he was
doing a good thing, sent “The
White Queen” for us to watch.
I tried, but it was
excruciating, and I was trying
to explain who was who. Then
he asked about Philippa
Gregory ………..


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:]

Sent: Tuesday,
May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re:
[Richard III Society
Forum] I'm back!



I
echo that Paul,
lets get it done.
After all they
bury your bones
not your spirit;
that can go
wherever it
wishes.

BTW
I see that PG's
next victim is
Margaret Pole - I
dread to think. H

On
Tuesday, 27
May 2014,
10:53, "Paul
Trevor Bale
paul.bale@...
[]"
<>
wrote:



Please
Johanne, don't
go there!
These PA
people, who
are supposed
to care about
Richard, have
delayed his
burial by over
a year. This
appeal should
never have
been brought
in the first
place, and
anyone who
really cares
about seeing
King Richard
reinterred
with the
dignity and
seriousness he
deserves
should simply
disappear and
allow it to
happen. At
last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014
10:27, Hilary
Jones hjnatdat@...
[]
wrote:
Welcome
back Johanne!
There was a
mention in one
article I read
that an appeal
could be
lodged. But
whether the
Alliance have
the will, or
more
importantly,
the money I
doubt. The
legal
profession
must have made
a bomb
already.

BTW
as a sucker
for punishment
I read the
documentation
and even in
the summary on
Richard
someone got at
least two
things wrong -
they said he
left Middleham
in 1465 and
that Clarence
died in 1482.
Poor Richard
seems forever
doomed to
inaccuracies.
H

On
Sunday, 25 May
2014, 19:47,
"Johanne
Tournier
jltournier60@...
[]"
mailto:
wrote:



Hi,
All!

And
I’m enjoying
the discussion
- what I’ve
seen of it!

Without
expressing any
opinion on the
merits of the
case - is
there any
possibility
that the
Plantagenet
Alliance might
appeal the
decision?

Loyaulte,


Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier

Email
-
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With
God, all
things are
possible."

- Jesus of
Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



--

Richard Liveth
Yet!





--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Maybe each of us should buy a lottery ticket, and send the proceeds to your dream!

On May 28, 2014, at 6:38 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale
paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:


As everyone here knows, I have been trying for years! Was getting close until White Queen, on the back of high sales of paperbacks, reared it's ugly head on the BBC.

"Wars of the Roses? No. Just done that haven't they? How about another Tudor film?"
My script is out there, and getting a lot of very good feedback, but money people are nervous of the cost, especailly as they say, it has just been done. No amount of my screaming "But it hasn't been Done! Only a female novelists innaccurate version of the
womens side!" seems to be having any effect.
I dreamed of winning the Lottery the other week. Only 150 million. When asked what I would do I said " My first millions will go to signing up the two actors I want to play Richard and Anne. Then I will hire a producer and using the 100 million start working
out a schedule to film!"
Hey ho....
Paul



On 27/05/2014 16:32, Pamela Bain
pbain@... [] wrote:
You are a trooper&&.I simply could not make it through. I do hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large screen, something which captures the true Richard. With the many gifted
actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so very long!



From:
[mailto:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:

Subject: Re: I'm back!


You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as very sympathetic,
despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should be? H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain
pbain@... []" <>
wrote:


My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was
who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..

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:]

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!


I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale
paul.bale@... []" <>
wrote:


Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness
he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul


On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money
I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465
and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []"
mailto: wrote:


Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,


Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



--
Richard Liveth Yet!





--
Richard Liveth Yet!

After reading the chapters you put on your website PG couldn't come anywhere near. The conversation between Richard and Cecily was particularly good.Mary

Paul, have you thought of getting in touch with Ang Lee and James Schamus at Focus Features?They like to make quality films and Ang always likes to try something new.Jess
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []Sent: 28/05/2014 12:46To: <>Subject: Re: I'm back!

Maybe each of us should buy a lottery ticket, and send the proceeds to your dream!
On May 28, 2014, at 6:38 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

As everyone here knows, I have been trying for years! Was getting close until White Queen, on the back of high sales of paperbacks, reared it's ugly head on the BBC. "Wars of the Roses? No. Just done that haven't they? How about another Tudor film?"My script is out there, and getting a lot of very good feedback, but money people are nervous of the cost, especailly as they say, it has just been done. No amount of my screaming "But it hasn't been Done! Only a female novelists innaccurate version of the womens side!" seems to be having any effect.I dreamed of winning the Lottery the other week. Only 150 million. When asked what I would do I said " My first millions will go to signing up the two actors I want to play Richard and Anne. Then I will hire a producer and using the 100 million start working out a schedule to film!"Hey ho....Paul On 27/05/2014 16:32, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:
You are a trooper&&.I simply could not make it through. I do hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large screen, something which captures the true Richard. With the many gifted actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so very long!



From: [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back!


You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as very sympathetic, despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should be? H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:


My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..

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:] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back!


I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:


Please Johanne, don't go there!These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!PaulOn 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already.

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:


Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




[The entire original message is not included.]

Love it Sandra, needed a good laugh right now after result of JR.Christine

Thank you, Christine. We aim to please, as the saying goes. And it always
pleases to do some Henry-bashing, yes? (Sorry David)
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The (tongue-in-cheek) truth
about Henry VII's birth and lineage

Love it Sandra, needed a good laugh right now after result of JR.
Christine

Yes bash away Sandra.Christine

Thank you Mary.
The Fall of brother George is going up tomorrow!
Paul

On 28/05/2014 12:59, maryfriend@...
[] wrote:
After reading the chapters you put on your website PG couldn't
come anywhere near. The conversation between Richard and Cecily
was particularly good.

Mary


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Johanne wrote :"Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!"Carol responds:Hi, Johanne. I was out of town (in Houston for a family reunion) when you returned to the forum and am just now getting caught up. A warm if belated welcome back!Carol

Hi, Carol! Thanks for the welcome back! I was missing your posts. But I'm glad to see you're still here! And I will repeat that I've been enjoying the discussion, and Sandra's late medieval humour, among other things. J TTFN, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 9:00 PMTo: Subject: Re: I'm back! Johanne wrote :"Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!" Carol responds: Hi, Johanne. I was out of town (in Houston for a family reunion) when you returned to the forum and am just now getting caught up. A warm if belated welcome back! Carol

Johane wrote :"Hi, Carol! Thanks for the welcome back! I was missing your posts. But I'm glad to see you're still here! And I will repeat that I've been enjoying the discussion, and Sandra's late medieval humour, among other things. J"Carol responds:You're welcome. Afraid I haven't had much to contribute lately, but I should have more time later in the year when I retire from copyediting. By the way, I'll be in England between August 4 and 14, in time to see the refurbished Richard III statue in its new setting, but not in time to see his new tomb.Carol