Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre

I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this. Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester With the Richard III Visitor Centre opening this weekend, the Looking For Richard Project' team is saddened and profoundly disappointed by the exhibition. Insofar ... View on www.annettecarso... Preview by Yahoo

Hi, Weds I think you probably know that I have been sympathetic to Leicester all along, but I think this is shameful! I can only suggest that the Looking for Richard Project seek out some way to make the truth known as prominently as the Visitor Centre exhibit, as much as possible. This should be featured in a website, perhaps called Not the Leicester Visitor Centre, or something like that. It does seem to me that it seems like an act of desperation on the part of the University but only serves to them look petty and tacky. I don't think it will benefit them in the long run, as long as Annette Carson, Philippa Langley, JA-H, and the Society, among others, do their part to disseminate the truth. Regarding the armor  what is the point of white plastic? If they can't afford to get a real suit of armor, surely the white could be painted to be more realistic. But, really, the whole thing makes me grit my teeth! Bah, humbug! L Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:23 PMTo: Subject: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this. Richard III Visitor Centre, LeicesterRichard III Visitor Centre, Leicester With the Richard III Visitor Centre opening this weekend, the Looking For Richard Project' team is saddened and profoundly disappointed by the exhibition. Insofar ...View on www.annettecarso... Preview by Yahoo

Shameful...shameful...words simply are not enough.....Eileen

Wasn't it the Tudors who were the specialists at re-writing history?Strangely, I am not at all appalled at the projection of an image of Richard's skeleton as it was found in the grave, but as for downgrading Phillipa and John's part in the finding of the body; they should be ashamed of themselves, and that star trooper should be consigned to the nearest rubbish bin.Appalled,Westcliff on sea
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []Sent: 27/07/2014 13:00To: Subject: RE: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre


Hi, Weds 
I think you probably know that I have been sympathetic to Leicester all along, but I think this is shameful! I can only suggest that the Looking for Richard Project seek out some way to make the truth known as prominently as the Visitor Centre exhibit, as much as possible. This should be featured in a website, perhaps called Not the Leicester Visitor Centre, or something like that.

It does seem to me that it seems like an act of desperation on the part of the University but only serves to them look petty and tacky. I don't think it will benefit them in the long run, as long as Annette Carson, Philippa Langley, JA-H, and the Society, among others, do their part to disseminate the truth.

Regarding the armor  what is the point of white plastic? If they can't afford to get a real suit of armor, surely the white could be painted to be more realistic.

But, really, the whole thing makes me grit my teeth!

Bah, humbug! L

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:23 PMTo: Subject: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre


I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this. Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester

Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester
With the Richard III Visitor Centre opening this weekend, the Looking For Richard Project' team is saddened and profoundly disappointed by the exhibition. Insofar ...
View on www.annettecarso...
Preview by Yahoo

I agree, completely. He looks like a "Star Wars" trooper. That is so stupid. And really, how and why are Phillipa and John being swept aside? Is it the University or what?

On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:33 AM, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:


Wasn't it the Tudors who were the specialists at re-writing history?
Strangely, I am not at all appalled at the projection of an image of Richard's skeleton as it was found in the grave, but as for downgrading Phillipa and John's part in the finding of the body; they should be ashamed of themselves, and that star trooper should
be consigned to the nearest rubbish bin.

Appalled,


Westcliff on sea
From:
Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent:
27/07/2014 13:00
To:

Subject:
RE: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre



Hi, Weds 
I think you probably know that I have been sympathetic to Leicester all along, but I think this is shameful! I can only suggest that the Looking for Richard Project
seek out some way to make the truth known as prominently as the Visitor Centre exhibit, as much as possible. This should be featured in a website, perhaps called Not the Leicester Visitor Centre, or something like that.


It does seem to me that it seems like an act of desperation on the part of the University but only serves to them look petty and tacky. I don't think it will
benefit them in the long run, as long as Annette Carson, Philippa Langley, JA-H, and the Society, among others, do their part to disseminate the truth.

Regarding the armor  what is the point of white plastic? If they can't afford to get a real suit of armor, surely the white could be painted to be more realistic.


But, really, the whole thing makes me grit my teeth!

Bah, humbug!
L

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:]

Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:23 PM
To:
Subject: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre


I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this.


Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester


Richard
III Visitor Centre, Leicester

With the Richard III Visitor Centre opening this weekend, the Looking For Richard Project' team is saddened and profoundly disappointed by the exhibition.
Insofar ...
View
on www.annettecarso...

Preview by Yahoo

I agree with you.It is shameful. And stupid too! If not for the Looking for Richard Team, there would be nothing to exhibit in Leicester at all. Did not the archeologists from ULAS doubt that they would ever succeed in finding the body of a known individual? Were we not told archeology does not work that way?I fear the visitor center will be a Chamber of Horror.Eva

Exhibitions are supposed to evolve. Is there any chance of the society getting its own room at the centre, so we can tell our side of the story in a coherent way?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
eva.pitter@... [] <>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre
Sent:
Sun, Jul 27, 2014 3:38:56 PM

 
I agree with you.It is shameful. And stupid too! If not for the Looking for Richard Team, there would be nothing to exhibit in Leicester at all. Did not the archeologists from ULAS doubt that they would ever succeed in finding the body of a known individual? Were we not told archeology does not work that way?I fear the visitor center will be a Chamber of Horror.Eva

Wednesday wrote:

"I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this."

Carol responds:

Thank you for posting this article. I've tried to stay out of the Leicester vs. York debate, but this situation is deeply disturbing. I expect to be in Leicester week after next and plan to visit the center. Thank goodness, I'm forewarned! If I have the opportunity, I'll speak out, in particular against the Star Wars travesty. What's the name of the armor specialist who spoke about Richard's armor? He should protest in person and offer to provide them with historically accurate information. I'll take a copy of the article with me and, if possible, show it to the person in charge.

What a travesty in every respect.

Carol

I think someone should go to Annette's blog and suggest that they start one of those petitions (you know, the ones that are only open to UK residents), to insist that the Visitor Centre correct their misinformation (and the armor). Regarding the armor, is that the same guy that did an analysis of which weapons caused which wounds on Richard's body? I might be able to find his name with a bit of searching. Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:40 PMTo: Subject: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre Wednesday wrote:"I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this."Carol responds:Thank you for posting this article. I've tried to stay out of the Leicester vs. York debate, but this situation is deeply disturbing. I expect to be in Leicester week after next and plan to visit the center. Thank goodness, I'm forewarned! If I have the opportunity, I'll speak out, in particular against the Star Wars travesty. What's the name of the armor specialist who spoke about Richard's armor? He should protest in person and offer to provide them with historically accurate information. I'll take a copy of the article with me and, if possible, show it to the person in charge.What a travesty in every respect.Carol

Royal Armouries' curator Bob Woosnam-Savage is the man you are looking for, I think. Here is an article about him: http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/press/armouries-finds-king-in-the-car-park Hope this helps! Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:45 PMTo: Subject: RE: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I think someone should go to Annette's blog and suggest that they start one of those petitions (you know, the ones that are only open to UK residents), to insist that the Visitor Centre correct their misinformation (and the armor). Regarding the armor, is that the same guy that did an analysis of which weapons caused which wounds on Richard's body? I might be able to find his name with a bit of searching. Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:40 PMTo: Subject: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre Wednesday wrote:"I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this."Carol responds:Thank you for posting this article. I've tried to stay out of the Leicester vs. York debate, but this situation is deeply disturbing. I expect to be in Leicester week after next and plan to visit the center. Thank goodness, I'm forewarned! If I have the opportunity, I'll speak out, in particular against the Star Wars travesty. What's the name of the armor specialist who spoke about Richard's armor? He should protest in person and offer to provide them with historically accurate information. I'll take a copy of the article with me and, if possible, show it to the person in charge.What a travesty in every respect.Carol

Johanne wrote :"Royal Armouries' curator Bob Woosnam-Savage is the man you are looking for, I think. Here is an article about him: http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/press/armouries-finds-king-in-the-car-park Hope this helps!" Carol responds:Thank you. That's the name and information I was looking for. I'll take it with me and, if I have the opportunity, speak with the "curators" about the possibility of having him do an authentic exhibit.Carol

Johanne wrote :"Royal Armouries' curator Bob Woosnam-Savage is the man you are looking for, I think. Here is an article about him: http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/press/armouries-finds-king-in-the-car-park Hope this helps!" Carol responds:I already responded but my other post hasn't shown up. If it does, please note that "curators" in quotation marks applies to the people in charge of the Leicester exhibit (who need to sit down with Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard III" ASAP--outdated though it may be, it's the best we have and will lighten their darkness), not to Mr. Woosnam-Savage. But what I really need a copy of or link to is his discussion of Richard's armor, not his battle wounds--assuming that he's the same man.Thanks,Carol

Glad to help!
And perhaps you could consider mentioning that they are deficient in giving due credit to the Looking for Richard team?
Good luck and God speed!
Johanne

--- Original Message ---

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
Sent: 27 July, 2014 8:16 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre





Johanne wrote :

"Royal Armouries' curator Bob Woosnam-Savage is the man you are looking for, I think. Here is an article about him:
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/press/armouries-finds-king-in-the-car-park


Hope this helps!"

Carol responds:

I already responded but my other post hasn't shown up. If it does, please note that "curators" in quotation marks applies to the people in charge of the Leicester exhibit (who need to sit down with Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard III" ASAP--outdated though it
may be, it's the best we have and will lighten their darkness), not to Mr. Woosnam-Savage. But what I really need a copy of or link to is his discussion of Richard's armor, not his battle wounds--assuming that he's the same man.

Thanks,
Carol

Johanne wrote :"Glad to help!
And perhaps you could consider mentioning that they are deficient in giving due credit to the Looking for Richard team?
Good luck and God speed!"Carol responds:Thank you. Yes, I intend to mention the Looking for Richard team, which is the main reason I'm taking the copy of Annette's article.Carol

Carol wrote:"What's the name of the armor specialist who spoke about Richard's armor?"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey... 2nd March 2013: The Greyfriars Dig -- A New Richard III: Dr Toby Capwell - How Richard III's Armour would have been adapted to cope with his scoliosis. T... View on www.you... Preview by Yahoo

Karen wrote:

"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"

Carol responds:

Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.

Carol

I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the
display. From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
Karen wrote:

"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"

Carol responds:

Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.

Carol

You're right, Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any
claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of
our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all,
there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs
or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne
doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The
folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication
into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit,
not be condemned from a distance.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson -
Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre

I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of
the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have
different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a
number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of
sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts
from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many
people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not
been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them,
when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on
the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and
attributed on a wall plaque next to the display.
From:
"justcarol67@... []"
<>
Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and
Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard
III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's
armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol
responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise
Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by
their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so
and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to
that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

The point is folks that this is a commercial venture to promote the University of Leicester's expertise in DNA and archealogy, not a eulogy on Richard. If you look back some eighteen months you'll see that I expressed concern that the due legal processes had not been put in place by the Looking for Richard Team or the Richard III Society which guaranteed that they would have a say in all this. In the commercial world people don't act with the honour that the team and the Society expected (in that they are so like Richard). Can you imagine a pharmaceutical company developing a drug or J K Rowling giving over the rights to Harry Potter without huge legal agreements; and of course huge legal agreements cost money? That is if you could reach a legal agreement on the rights to some things - I'm
not sure JAH could copyright his genealogy; that's open to anyone who does a bit of research on the internet. In enterprises like this which started with an 'amateur' input the amateurs stand no chance unless they have some very influential backing. The big guys will always win; they have the influence and the money. That being said, surely it's better to have something which gives info about Richard rather than nothing at all? How many other English monarchs have a visitor centre devoted to them. And, as a commercial venture, to bring in the punters you need a bit of drama - 'we' are a niche market. We should encourage others to take an interest in Richard; even if some of the info is contentious. I haven't been yet but I may put my head round the door when the weather gets cooler. H
On Sunday, 27 July 2014, 23:44, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
I think someone should go to Annette's blog and suggest that they start one of those petitions (you know, the ones that are only open to UK residents), to insist that the Visitor Centre correct their misinformation (and the armor). Regarding the armor, is that the same guy that did an analysis of which weapons caused which wounds on Richard's body? I might be able to find his name with a bit of searching. Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:40 PMTo:
Subject: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre Wednesday wrote:"I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like this."Carol responds:Thank you for posting this article. I've tried to stay out of the Leicester vs. York debate, but this situation is deeply disturbing. I expect to be in Leicester week after next and plan to visit
the center. Thank goodness, I'm forewarned! If I have the opportunity, I'll speak out, in particular against the Star Wars travesty. What's the name of the armor specialist who spoke about Richard's armor? He should protest in person and offer to provide them with historically accurate information. I'll take a copy of the article with me and, if possible, show it to the person in charge.What a travesty in every respect.Carol

Hi, Sandra and Pamela & Everyone  Well, I admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper than King Richard's armour??) BTW, Pamela, I don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds hideous to me. The issue with which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society. Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were sufficient at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I wrote earlier, in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL, not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to give credit where credit is due. OK, now I'll get off my soapbox! J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre You're right, Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be condemned from a distance. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the display. From: "justcarol67@... []" <> Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

Someone has posted a photograph of the attributions of all the quotes used in the display on one of the FB sites. I guess the attributions were not directly linked to the quotes for aesthetic reasons, but they all appear on a plaque next to the display. There is also a Roll of Honour acknowledging all the contributions from people involved with the whole project from discovery to the Visitor Centre itself. This Roll lists LFR people, and the Richard III Society among others.I was disappointed to see on the Visitor Centre Review site a lot of extremely negative comments from people who have not visited the exhibition but who are using their
reviews as a means to promote a York reburial. The image of Ricardians that the general public get of by such actions will do nothing to help our quest for a proper re-evaluation of Richard's life and times. All this squabbling and the verbal spats posted all over the Internet will only reinforce the idea that Ricardians are some sort of 'fan club' and not a serious historical society and may even have the effect of turning people away from learning more about Richard. From: "Johanne Tournier wrote:

Hi, Sandra and Pamela & Everyone  Well, I admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper than King Richard's armour??)
BTW, Pamela, I don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds hideous to me. The issue with which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society. Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were sufficient at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I
wrote earlier, in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL, not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to give credit where credit is due. OK, now I'll get off my soapbox!
J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre You're right, Pamela. We
can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be condemned from a distance. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the display. From: "justcarol67@... []" <> Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be
appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

Further to my comments yesterday, I am still very much looking forward to visiting the Richard III Centre, and if it is half as good as the displays at the Bosworth Field Visitor Centre I feel sure it will be marvellous.What I was objecting to, and I have great respect for Annette Carson, and take her word for it, was any lack of respect and support for the work done by Phillipa and John.ULAS are excellent as far as research and archaeology are concerned, probably some of the best in the world, but they were not responsible for finding The Greyfriars, or for knowing a likely spot to look for Richard's body.Credit must be given where it is due.I still feel the same about the "star trooper" though.Jess From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []Sent: 28/07/2014 13:32To: Subject: RE: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre
Hi, Sandra and Pamela & Everyone  Well, I admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper than King Richard's armour??) BTW, Pamela, I don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds hideous to me. The issue with which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society. Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were sufficient at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I wrote earlier, in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL, not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to give credit where credit is due. OK, now I'll get off my soapbox! J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre You're right, Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be condemned from a distance. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the display. From: "justcarol67@... []" <> Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol
[The entire original message is not included.]

Pamela
wrote:
I
was disappointed to see on the Visitor Centre Review site a lot of extremely
negative comments from people who have not visited the exhibition but who are
using their reviews as a means to promote a York reburial. The image of
Ricardians that the general public get of by such actions will do nothing to
help our quest for a proper re-evaluation of Richard's life and times. All
this squabbling and the verbal spats posted all over the Internet will only
reinforce the idea that Ricardians are some sort of 'fan club' and not a serious
historical society and may even have the effect of turning people away from
learning more about Richard.
Sandra adds:
This is my fear too, Pamela. Unflattering conclusions will
be drawn by these activities.
From:
"Johanne Tournier wrote:
Hi, Sandra and
Pamela & Everyone 
Well, I admit that
my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a
reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I
have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I
think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or
placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be
there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is
complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone
doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper than King Richard's
armour??)
BTW, Pamela, I
don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it
from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds
hideous to me.
The issue with
which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the
failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John
Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society.
Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I
suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were sufficient
at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I wrote earlier,
in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking
petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the
search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an
opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the
credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL,
not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the
genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious
and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the
University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to
give credit where credit is due.
OK, now I'll get
off my soapbox! J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L.
Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] Sent: Monday, July
28, 2014 3:28 AMTo:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors
Centre
You're right,
Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the
Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes,
not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be
other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated
photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have
blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in
Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the
Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be
condemned from a distance.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53
AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re:
Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors
Centre
I am intrigued by the number of people
eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a
museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot
in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its
displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had
a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't
seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote
from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying
to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that
particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for
aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next
to the display.
From: "mailto:justcarol67@...%20[]"
<>
Karen
wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at
the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III
Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's
armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol
responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise
Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by
their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so
and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to
that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

Agree entirely about the attribution, but I'm not surprised. It's a commercial venture and will follow the money. Not a justification, but I hope people can separate individuals such as Richard Buckley, of whom I've heard nothing but praise, from the corporate entities involved.The "armour", I think, is an aesthetic choice if it's on the second floor, which is
supposed to have a white, clinical and investigative theme, in contrast to the lower level. Whatever the merits or demerits of that, it's not an example of cost-cutting. There's armour to spare at the Bosworth Visitor Centre.Jonathan
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 28 July 2014, 16:15 Subject: RE: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre
Further to my comments yesterday, I am still very much looking forward to visiting the Richard III Centre, and if it is half as good as the displays at the Bosworth Field Visitor Centre I feel sure it will be marvellous.What I was objecting to, and I have great respect for Annette Carson, and take her word for it, was any lack of respect and support for the work done by Phillipa and John.ULAS are excellent as far as research and archaeology are concerned, probably some of the best in the world, but they were not responsible for finding The Greyfriars, or for knowing a likely spot to look for Richard's body.Credit must be given where it is due.I still feel the same about the "star trooper" though.Jess From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []Sent: 28/07/2014 13:32To: Subject: RE: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre
Hi, Sandra and Pamela & Everyone  Well, I admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper
than King Richard's armour??) BTW, Pamela, I don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds hideous to me. The issue with which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society. Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were
sufficient at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I wrote earlier, in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL, not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to give credit where credit is due. OK, now I'll get off my soapbox! J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre
You're right, Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be condemned from a distance. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors
Centre I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to
pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the display. From: "justcarol67@... []" <> Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

Hi, Sandra & Pamela (again)  But this is not a public site (or not ordinarily public). You should well know by now, as I have expressed on numerous occasions, that I have wanted Richard's body to remain in Leicester, with due consideration and dignity given to the reinterment of his remains. At the same time, if issues have been raised, this is a fair forum in which to discuss them. It is not reasonable, in my view, to say that one shouldn't bring something up because someone on some other venue may come across as shrill or unreasoning. There has to be someplace in which we who do care can discuss such matters, as adults. I agree that many of the sentiments expressed over the last year have not persuaded me of their rationality. At the same time I don't think one should seemingly put a stop to all discussion by saying It will look like we are a fan club. This is a discussion list and not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, after all, so it has to be a forum for informal discussion of anything relating to Richard III as well as some considerations that are more serious in nature. I hope the Exhibit ends up being a wonderful educational tool for Richard and his times. But if one gets information from a usually reliable source that suggests that the curators are open to criticism, I think criticizing is fair ball. If we don't bring up and discuss what we have heard, how will we know if there is an something to be said on the other side? Perhaps it may result in some action being taken which will result in improvements all around. I think it is fair to criticize the tone of the exhibit, possible failure to maintain a level of scholarly accuracy and omitting to give credit where credit is due for the success of the enterprise. And I think it will be possible to aim for the historical truth, as it is understood, and still be dramatic and have popular appeal. Yes, I think it would be better if someone had seen the exhibit but for some of us that is unfortunately not possible at this time. Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:52 PMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre Pamela wrote:I was disappointed to see on the Visitor Centre Review site a lot of extremely negative comments from people who have not visited the exhibition but who are using their reviews as a means to promote a York reburial. The image of Ricardians that the general public get of by such actions will do nothing to help our quest for a proper re-evaluation of Richard's life and times. All this squabbling and the verbal spats posted all over the Internet will only reinforce the idea that Ricardians are some sort of 'fan club' and not a serious historical society and may even have the effect of turning people away from learning more about Richard. Sandra adds:This is my fear too, Pamela. Unflattering conclusions will be drawn by these activities. From: "Johanne Tournier wrote: Hi, Sandra and Pamela & Everyone  Well, I admit that my opinion is influenced by the fact that I believe that Annette Carson is a reputable scholar who would not intentionally mislead us in her blog. And, no, I have not been to the Exhibit, so I am only going by what she has written. But I think it is very possible that the attribution you speak of is so minute and/or placed off to the side, away from the quotes, that it might as well not be there. (Yes, I agree that it would be helpful to have examples of what she is complaining of. We can see the example of the white plastic armor  does anyone doubt that it looks more like a Star Wars stormtrooper than King Richard's armour??) BTW, Pamela, I don't believe the bloody throne was actually erected; the way I understand it from the blog, that was something that was only proposed. Still, it sounds hideous to me. The issue with which I have the greatest problem and which I personally do not doubt is the failure to include the vital contributions of Philippa Langley, John Ashdown-Hill, the Looking for Richard Project, and the Richard III Society. Regardless of whether there was some specific guarantee in the contracts (I suspect there were some assurances that PL and the Society felt were sufficient at the time), there is no excuse for distorting the record. As I wrote earlier, in my view that leaves the City, ULAS and the University by implication looking petty and tacky. It is true that ULAS, led by Richard Buckley doubted that the search would be successful. He accepted the task only because he felt it was an opportunity to learn more about the Greyfriars. Which is fine, except that the credit for the determination to undertake and continue the search rests with PL, not with Dr. Buckley and ULAS. Again, the University did not initiate the genealogical research into Richard's family tree. The most difficult and tedious and expensive portion was undertaken at his own expense by JA-H and ULAS and the University benefitted. So I think they owe it to the public and posterity to give credit where credit is due. OK, now I'll get off my soapbox! J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:28 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre You're right, Pamela. We can't really, beyond-all-shadow-of-doubt make any claims about the Visitor Centre unless we've been there and have the evidence of our own eyes, not someone else's. If York City Records are mentioned after all, there may be other things that aren't quite what they appear according to blogs or isolated photographs. I'm not saying the armour isn't white or the throne doesn't have blood around it, just that things should be seen in context. The folk in Leicester have put in a lot of time, planning, effort and dedication into the Visitors' Centre and its displays, and they deserve due credit, not be condemned from a distance. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:53 AMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Annette Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the display. From: "mailto:justcarol67@...%20[]" <> Karen wrote:"Would this be Dr Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Museum? He gave the talk on Richard's armour - 8. Richard III Society: Leicester Conference - Grey Friars Dig: Adapting King Richard III's armour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9F0VHTjY"Carol responds:Yes, thank you. That's the man I had in mind to advise Leicester on what armor was really like in 1485. I imagine he'd be appalled by their display, or is already appalled if he has seen it. I hope he has done so and has offered his services. If not, I'll try to make a tactful suggestion to that effect if I have the opportunity.Carol

Pamela wrote :"I am intrigued by the number of people eager to condemn the whole of the Visitor Centre exhibition (which is not a museum and therefore will have different exhibits etc) without even setting foot in it. There are a number of complementary posts about the centre and its displays on a number of sites across the internet, yet on this forum we have had a whole string of posts from people offended by something they haven't seen. For example, many people have been keen to point out that the quote from the City of York has not been attributed and so claim Leicester is trying to pretend it relates to them, when in fact none of the quotes in that particular display have attributions on the display itself (perhaps for aesthetic reasons) but they are all listed and attributed on a wall plaque next to the
display."Carol responds:Since you quoted my post and seem to be including me among the people who condemn the entire exhibition unseen, I feel compelled to respond. I said that I will be visiting the center soon, and if the facts are as Annette presents them (and I have no reason to doubt her), I will, if possible, make a few tactful suggestions to the curators, including one about the armor and another about crediting the people without whom the discovery of Richard's skeleton would not have been possible.I don't "do" Facebook or rant in public about things I haven't seen, but I agree with Johanne that we should be allowed to react as we see fit to this article in this private forum. Public comments on the visitor center's website from people who have never seen the center are, of course, another matter altogether. My apologies if you were offended by my putting "curators" in quotation marks. that was admittedly an emotional reaction. Based on the information in Annette's article, they did not seem to deserve the name and would do well to learn more about the man to whom their museum is dedicated. (I'm sure you agree that the bloody throne was an appalling idea and are as glad as I am that it was abandoned, but the very fact that someone suggested it implies that their idea of Richard comes from Shakespeare.) I will, however, reserve judgment until I have actually seen the displays, at which time I will, as I said, make tactful suggestions to the persons in charge if I see the need and if I have the opportunity. (I also expect to have a few polite words for the guides at the Tower!)Carol

Absolutely agree Eileen. Why when there is so much more to Richard's story?Mary

One had hoped that at long last someone
somewhere would be putting the record straight regarding Richard.
But if this is how the Leicester authorities behave about the dig,
lying from the start, what chance does Richard have?
And not treating Richard's remains with the respect they deserve
is if nothing else humanly appalling.
Paul


On 27/07/2014 12:59, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...
[] wrote:

Hi, Weds –
I think you
probably know that I have been sympathetic to Leicester all
along, but I think this is shameful! I can only suggest that
the Looking for Richard Project seek out some way to make
the truth known as prominently as the Visitor Centre
exhibit, as much as possible. This should be featured in a
website, perhaps called “Not the Leicester Visitor Centre,”
or something like that.

It does seem to
me that it seems like an act of desperation on the part of
the University but only serves to them look petty and tacky.
I don’t think it will benefit them in the long run, as long
as Annette Carson, Philippa Langley, JA-H, and the Society,
among others, do their part to disseminate the truth.

Regarding the
armor – what is the point of white plastic? If they can’t
afford to get a real suit of armor, surely the white could
be painted to be more realistic.

But, really,
the whole thing makes me grit my teeth!

Bah, humbug! L

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:23 PM
To:
Subject: Annette
Carson - Commentary Regarding the R3 Visitors Centre


I am deeply saddened by what Annette Carson has shared
in the article below with all of us. Beyond that, in my
bewilderment and sorrow, I don't understand why
Leicester is betraying Richard and everyone else like
this.

Richard III Visitor Centre, Leicester




Richard
III Visitor Centre, Leicester
With
the Richard III Visitor Centre opening
this weekend, the ‘Looking For Richard
Project’ team is saddened and
profoundly disappointed by the
exhibition. Insofar ...

View
on www.annettecarso...
Preview
by Yahoo













--
Richard Liveth Yet!