Richard III remains found & identified

[Terence]

Thanks for the clarification mcdnab.  I understood the sentence but not the underlying supposition.

And thanks for the details on E. Woodville's lineage.  It's back aways, but she indeed had 2 lines of Plantagenet descent.

T

[Kimberly]

Info for anyone who can get More4.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story

Wednesday 27th February at 9 pm.

[CountessKate]

I've seen the adverts - it looks like they are doing something pitched at the scientific end of the spectrum, as opposed to the rather uneasy hybrid of popular/science of the first programme. 

[CountessKate]

Info for anyone who can get More4.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/following-hit-doc-more4-to-screen-richard-iii-the-unseen-story

Wednesday 27th February at 9 pm.

The programme had the same presenter, Simon Farnaby, and was clearly simply parts of Channel 4's extensive footage of the dig and aftermath which hadn't been shown before because (from what one could deduce) it was entirely unsensational.  Although Philippa Langley was occasionally present, all her emoting was removed, only a tiny remnant of Simon Farnaby's fey (and entirely mistaken) saluting of Michael Ibsen as the last Plantagenet was shown, and the rest was the archaeologists and scientists being very low key and informative with Farnaby mostly a voiceover.  I found it much more interesting than the first programme which I now wished I'd never seen as it irritated me too much.  This was just a quick and clean presentation of what happened from a purely scientific/historical point of view.

[Kimberly]

Thanks for that CountessKate. I missed it but hope to watch it on "catch up" and I had heard that it was a more "grown up" version of the first documentary.

[edubs31]

Ugh, what a control freak! :-)

http://news.yahoo.com/dead-king-richard-iii-control-freak-psychologists-015918086.html

[Kimberly]

Um, he was a medieval King.... Psychologists...sheesh.

[Kimberly]

Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048.

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

[Janet Ashton]

Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048.

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

Here is the debate: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21757331

Isn't Hugh Bayley Labour, though?


Meanwhile, Leicester Cathedral has thrown the cat well and truly among the pigeons by announcing that it has no room for the tomb which the Society had designed,

http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18391233

and which the Society's members had evidently contributed to on the expectation that it would be used. Some of them had been extremely defensive of Leicester's claim to keep the King's bones.



This is becoming a tremendous mess.

[Terence]

Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048.

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

Here is the debate: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21757331

...


Meanwhile, Leicester Cathedral has thrown the cat well and truly among the pigeons by announcing that it has no room for the tomb which the Society had designed,

http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18391233

and which the Society's members had evidently contributed to on the expectation that it would be used. Some of them had been extremely defensive of Leicester's claim to keep the King's bones.


This is becoming a tremendous mess.

Indeed Janet it has, very sad.  From what I've seen there was much acceptance of Leicester Cathedral amongst Ricardians, partly based on the fact it was presented as a done deal.  IE, it was put out that the license for exhumation required reburial in the nearest appropriate burial spot.

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  Just recently they haven't helped themselves by rejecting a tomb, insisting on a slab and then releasing this brief-
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofR\ichardIII130313.pdf

Overall the brief isn't too bad, but there are a couple of things that Ricardians object to, including an inaccurate bit of history re: Bosworth.  But hey, it's RIII, comes w/ the territory.  Seems like they really mucked it up, almost a done deal.

As I'm an American I won't offer an opinion, other than to say there are other places maybe more apropo and the deceit by UoL leaves a bad taste for anyone who values honesty.

T

[CountessKate]

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.   

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

[Janet Ashton]

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.   

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

The terms of the license, though, seem to have given Leicester University the right to decide the place of burial - but did not specify that this had to be local.  In other words, according to this interpretation, it would have been perfectly possible for the University to consult widely before choosing a burial spot, once it was aware that the bones were not those of "an unnamed individual".

There are also stories at large - and to judge from this interview with John Ashdown-Hill (http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html?SSScrollPosition=0) they are not just internet gossip - that the Society made its position on the tomb's design clear with Leicester, but that a "change of management" in the Cathedral has caused the Cathedral to renege on the agreement.

I feel sorry to an extent for Leicester cathedral, which is obviously a working church which has had this rather foisted upon them, and does not have the capacity for a royal tomb. Rightly or wrongly, royal tombs are better suited to sites which are accustomed to act as museums/memorials as well.

[CountessKate]

There are also stories at large - and to judge from this interview with John Ashdown-Hill (http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html?SSScrollPosition=0) they are not just internet gossip - that the Society made its position on the tomb's design clear with Leicester, but that a "change of management" in the Cathedral has caused the Cathedral to renege on the agreement.

I feel sorry to an extent for Leicester cathedral, which is obviously a working church which has had this rather foisted upon them, and does not have the capacity for a royal tomb. Rightly or wrongly, royal tombs are better suited to sites which are accustomed to act as museums/memorials as well.

A very interesting article.  It all seems a bit sad, really, that this truly fabulous discovery seems to be bogging down in disappointment and (albeit so far, polite) argument.  I actually thought the Society's projected tomb seemed the right way to go though would agree Leicester Cathedral doesn't appear the right place for it.

[Terence]

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

I don't think it's in the least unfair.  The licence has always allowed burial of an unidentified person nearest the nearest burial site.  An identified person is another issue, there are national guidlines, like I mentioned, they are being ignored.  IMO they were deceptive about this, from what I have read.  Now we know they are renigging on a previous agreement about the tomb.

And as you can see from the comments here the persons involved from the begining have been misled.  Both John and Phillipa who really made this project possible are extremely upset at the current state of things.

http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

Very sad that Richard was abused before his burial and now some want to repeat it.

T

[Kimberly]

This from Richard III mailings.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-options-open-king-s-resting-place/story-18425295-detail/story.html#ixzz2NosVOsgT