Coin

In everything that mentions the discovery of Richard's remains, including the coin sale, this appears
"University of Leicester archaeologist Richard Buckley, who led the team which discovered the remains of Richard III".
Am I the only one getting more and more angry by the way the most of the time reluctant to get involved with these Ricardian nutcases gent is now taking all the credit?
Every reference mentions the university, rarely Phillippa or John.
Fuming
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!

hi Paul,

I'm fairly sure we don't agree on everything about the dig, the re-interment etc, but I am totally with you on this element. Richard Buckley deserves much credit for heading up the archaeology team and work that happened but (despite some protestations to the contrary) it does appear more and more that Leicester Uni/ULAS claim the credit for the find (and its surrounding research etc) and there might be a mention of PL/JAH but a mere nod, but usually no reference at all. If you have read any of the new Bulletin, PL's anger in her letter about the visitor centre and the way the dig and "how things happened" has been given a totally different slant by the labelling in the centre, it indicates just a little of what has happened.

No- one on the ULAS team - no-one - thought that Richard would be found - so all the accounts say. As the recent Nerdalicious interview with the LFR team shows, they alone were pretty much all certain that he would be found; and it was JAH's work and PL's determination that made it happen. The Trench 1 remains would never have been fully exhumed if PL hadn't put the last of the monies into the effort, and totally contrary to what RB and the ULAS team were doing/wanting.

Yes, it is very angry-making and far from "putting up and shutting up" as some people are suggesting should happen, this new myth-making is something that is not going to go away - the alternate version of how the find happened is being reproduced in accounts of the dig all over the internet. The LFR must be totally fed up.