Re: Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found!

**Sabot** Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:18 am

I am beginning to think that Westminster would be the best place for him. That would put a stop to all of the infighting.
Where would they have buried him if he had died in his bed? Not that I care all that much. Sorry about that, but I guess I am more interested in the mayhem caused by what was a very short Tudor reign.

**Lamplighter** Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:22 am

Where would they have buried him if he had died in his bed?

It would probably have been stipulated in his will, or, if his wife or son were alive then they would have been able to state his wishes as they would know them. If no immediate family then the next relative would have been consulted. LL

**bb1** Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:28 am

None of this would be happening if H8 hadn't been such a failure in the Siring department. If the original church hadn't been destroyed then the marked tomb would still be there. It's madness, IMO, to do anything now other than rebury the poor bugger in the cathedral which is only about 100 yards away.

Anything else is trying to rewrite history, IMO.

**lily** Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:35 pm

It's time for their egos to be put to one side and get on with the job at hand. This is about a deceased King of England not some love crazy harpies.

**bb1** Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:02 pm

The exact site of his wife's tomb has been lost over the centuries, as has his son's. As you say, he was a king of England - the last genuine one, to many people.

Why shouldn't Richard have a cathedral just for himself, right slap bang in the centre of England? And MILES away from the flaming Henry Tudor Experience planned for York. He's already had the Henry Tudor Experience and it didn't end well.

Also, it's actually extremely un-Christian to judge the fitness of a church by the number of curly bits and spires it's got.

**lily** Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:08 pm

It seems like the sensible solution when you get down to it? He was found in Leicester so as you say, Bonny, he can have a whole cathedral to himself.

The people stirring the pot have had their 15 minutes of fame and it's time to move on to the real business here.

**bb1** Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:19 pm

I actually don't know what it is they imagine they want, Lily. York Minister isn't that keen on him; the Viking lot are taking over the marketing of the museum and the Henry Tudor Experience - does any of this suggest the slightest bit of respect?

I don't know, maybe they've read too much of the battier romantic fiction on the subject of Richard or something? Do they think they can dream up some kind of happy ending after five centuries? If they were that concerned, then they should have shown an interest as soon as it was first reported that remains had been found at his possible burial site. Not waited until other people had done all the hard work and spent all the money.

And please note, it's UK taxpayers that are footing the bill for this nonsense. I am afraid the self-styled 'Plantagenet Alliance' are increasingly reminding me of the Hounders.

I had a glance at their FB page; the Guardian dared to criticise them, so guess what they've got organised to do to set the record straight? Clue; it involves mass emailing. rofl

**lily** Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:21 pm

What morons are they? We could tell them how good that idea is. rofl

**bb1** Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:41 am

His Grace has had an Ambassadorial visit:

It was the kind of diplomatic answer you might expect from an ambassador.

Matthew W Barzun, the USA's top representative in Great Britain, was certainly not going to let himself be drawn into the continuing debate over where Richard III's bones should be laid to rest.

Yesterday, the US ambassador, a history enthusiast, also visited the site where the royal remains were found and was put on the spot by reporters.

He was asked whether Richard should be interred at the nearby cathedral or in York – the matter being decided by an increasingly drawn out High Court judicial review.

Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found! - Page 2 5919944-large

Breaking News!!!! Richard III's Body Found! - Page 2 5919944-large

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Visiting-ambassador-Matthew-Barzun/story-20826958-detail/story.html#ixzz2wP7BPYhB

**Lamplighter** Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:39 am

The Richard III Society
Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924
Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
Bringing you the latest important news and events about Richard III.

The Judicial Review held 13 & 14 March 2014 at the Royal Courts of Justice, London

The Judicial Review, postponed from 26 November 2013, was again heard before Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave. The proceedings were not about where King Richard III should be buried but whether the defendants, the Secretary of State for Justice and the University of Leicester, had a duty at common law to consult about where and how the King’s remains should be reinterred. The action had been brought by the Plantagenet Alliance, a group of fifteen collateral descendants of the king, who believed they should have been consulted and in August 2013 Mr Justice Haddon-Cave judged their case was arguable and granted permission for the proceedings.

The Alliance specifically challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice who, on 3 September 2012, granted the Exhumation Licence without any consultation, their subsequent decision on 4 February 2013 not to re-visit the grant of the Licence after the identification of King Richard and the decision of the University on 4 February 2014 to begin making arrangements for the reinterment of the remains of the King in Leicester Cathedral. Counsel for the Claimant, Gerard Clarke, spent Thursday morning making his submissions and outlined his thoughts on the type of consultation that could be undertaken and emphasised his client was only asking for the right to be consulted. Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Ouseley frequently questioned Mr Clarke and in some instances pressed him for specific answers. Unfortunately some of Mr Clarke’s statements were considered dubious and which provoked a protest from the public gallery by Philippa Langley. Lady Justice Hallett asked for a written statement from Philippa and the Judges retired for a short interval and on their return announced they would accept the statement but no further submissions would be allowed. Lady Justice Hallett graciously acknowledged that the Court was only sitting because of Philippa’s endeavours. Mr Clarke had not endeared himself to other Ricardians present when he referred to the Society as a ‘historical club’ despite our 90 years of historical research.

After lunch it was the turn of James Eadie QC on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice. Mr Eadie dealt with five legal principals of common law and whether or not there was a duty for his client to consult. For an hour he cited case after case, precedent after precedent, point of law after point of law and appeared to demolish the Claimant’s case. He concluded that there was no statutory duty to consult, no promise to consult and no established practice to consult.

The final submission of the day was from Anya Proops on behalf of the University of Leicester. Ms Proops stated that the University should not have been named as a defendant and had no duty whatsoever to consult. She allowed that if there was a duty to consult it rested with the Secretary of State for Justice.

The final submission was made on Friday morning by Andrew Sharland QC on behalf of Leicester City Council. The Council had, as reported in the December Bulletin, applied to be an interested party in the Judicial Review and during the proceedings on 26 November they were made a third defendant and the Review was subsequently adjourned to await the new submissions but not before the City Council undertook to hold a consultation. In a surprise move a few weeks later the Council abandoned their undertaking to consult. This was frustrating as the whole matter could have been concluded by a judgement after the November hearing and without the considerable extra costs of the present hearing. Lady Justice Hallett commented there would be monetary repercussions! Mr Sharland’s submission was that the City Council had no role in the reburial of King Richard. They had no statutory right to consult. The University of Leicester had the Licence and rights and they had been charged to keep the remains safely, privately and decently, which they had done.

As Counsel for the Claimant, Mr Clarke concluded the hearing with his response to the Defendants’ submissions and there was discussion with the Judges regarding who could be consulted and it was recorded, in no particular order, HM The Queen, the collateral descendants of King Richard, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the citizens of Leicester and York, and those members of the public who were interested.

The proceedings were closed with the announcement by Lady Justice Hallett that they would consider the submissions and would hope to reach a judgement in the next four to six weeks. This is not an enviable task, especially considering the several hundred, if not thousands of pages of documents, contained in the lever arch files which sat in front of the several legal teams.

What might that judgement be? It would be wrong to speculate but perhaps just the observation that Mr Eadie’s defence was awesome in terms of legal precedent and point of law but at the end of the day the Judges are faced with an absolutely unprecedented, and probably unique occurrence, how and where do you reinter the remains of an anointed king of England? Perhaps you just throw out the rule book!

I would like to share one personal reflection after listening to the submissions and arguments. The Counsels’ for the Secretary of State for Justice, the University of Leicester and Leicester City Council all denied their clients’ duty to consult and yet, at one stage or another, they had all considered consultation!

I should perhaps mention that it would be challenging to provide a more in-depth summary of the Judicial Review due to the difficulties of hearing the speakers from the public area, the incessant and disruptive arrivals and departures of visitors to the public areas (although the opportunity to wander in and out of sitting courts is a wonderful facet of our heritage) and the fact that many of the submissions and arguments related to documents in the ‘bundles’ which the Counsels frequently referred to and which were, of course, not available to the general public.

Where does this leave the Society? In limbo for a while? We are no further behind than we were before the review resumed and we can now look forward to a possible conclusion to the legal arguments. After that, who knows? We continue to wait and see.

The Richard III Society
Promoting research into the life and times of Richard III since 1924
Patron: HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO
Bringing you the latest important news and events about Richard III.

Further to my summary of the Judicial Review circulated yesterday here is a link to more detailed report.

http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/richard-iii-in-court/

**bb1** Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:22 am

Thanks, LL.

As an onlooker, it seems to me that the Richard III society were put in the most appalling position, in what should have been their finest hour so far, and I admire their restraint in staying publicly neutral.

Let's hope a sensible decision is made soon.

Some more news:

TheChannel 4 documentary that followed the remarkable story of Richard III's unlikely discovery has received the history award at the Royal Television Society's Programme Awards.

Filmmakers Darlow Smithson Productions picked up the accolade for their programme, Richard III: King in a Car Park.

They were presented with the award at a ceremony at the Grosvenor House Hotel, in London, this week.

The documentary followed University of Leicester researchers, from the discovery of the remains to the extensive scientific tests carried out to establish its identity. It was watched by five million viewers and is the channel's most-watched factual documentary.

Richard Buckley, lead archaeologist in the Richard III dig, accepted the award along with Philippa Langley, of the Richard III Society.

They were joined by presenter Simon Farnaby and members of Darlow Smithson Productions, Julian Ware and Simon Young.

Mr Buckley said: "I am delighted Darlow Smithson Productions and Channel 4 have been honoured in this way.

"Never before has one of our excavations been followed from start to finish by TV cameras and it is a great credit to the production team that they managed to convey in the film the excitement we all felt as the project unfolded, culminating in the startling discovery of Richard III's grave, in September 2012."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Documentary-car-park-dig-wins/story-20837181-detail/story.html#ixzz2waxtUNMv

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Historic display draws Duke to pay a visit

The Duke of Gloucester HRH Prince Richard visiting the head of the former Duke of Gloucester, Richard III, at Gloucester Museum today.

DUKE of Gloucester, meet the Duke of Gloucester.

His Royal Highness, Prince Richard, arrived in the city to view an historic display of his most famous predecessor yesterday.

Prince Richard visited the head of the former Duke of Gloucester, Richard III, which is on display at Gloucester City Museum.

Although he had the chance to see it in London, Prince Richard wanted to see it in Gloucester because of the historic title.

Posing for pictures, Prince Richard commented on the nice hair on the head.

He said: “It is very encouraging to see so many people support this significant display. He is well worth evaluating.”

Richard III might have been dead for more than 500 years but he is certainly pulling in the crowds during the festival marking Gloucester’s stop on the reconstructed head’s national tour. More than 700 people have already seen the head, which is on display until March 30.

Read more: http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Historic-display-draws-Duke-pay-visit/story-20839782-detail/story.html#ixzz2wiyUBW1v

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:38 pm

That's a wonderful story and how lovely

DUKE of Gloucester, meet the Duke of Gloucester.

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:46 pm

I'm sure I recall LL saying there wasn't supposed to be another Richard, Duke of Gloucester, but the current Duke's older brother died in an accident?

It's fascinating how much general wierdness there is to do with Richard III; I read recently that it began just hours after his death.

Apparently, the Portuguese princess he was negotiating to marry was told in a dream that he was dead, long before news of Bosworth reached Portugal.

My Theory is that he was so angry at the manner of his death, and what came after, that he hasn't actually Rested In Peace........

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:06 pm

I do hope they hurry up and let him then.

Yes, didn't the other Duke of Gloucester die in a plane accident? Was he the pilot?

Will have to go research now. biggrin

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:17 pm

I don't mean to take this thread off course, but look at the similarities between the late Prince William and the present one. Shocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2057873/The-Prince-William-The-uncanny-parallels-Wills-dashing-doomed-cousin-memory-named.html

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:23 pm

Good Lord, they could be brothers - I hadn't seen photos of the late Prince before.

I wouldn't worry too much about taking our threads off-course, Lily, no-one here suffers from the Tidy Thread obsession. biggrin

**Lamplighter** Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:43 pm

A historical note re names, Stephen, John and Richard were all deliberately removed from possible king names as they were considered to be villians. King George V and Queen Mary had a son, John, The Lost Prince, (1906-1919) who was epileptic and autistic. Henry Duke of Gloucester was the first royal to name his son Richard while Queen EII gave her youngest son, Edward, Richard as his third name. As said above, the present Duke was never expected to succeed his father. LL

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:54 pm

bb1 wrote:Good Lord, they could be brothers - I hadn't seen photos of the late Prince before.

I wouldn't worry too much about taking our threads off-course, Lily, no-one here suffers from the Tidy Thread obsession.

They do look like brothers don't they? The present Duke of Gloucester looks so like his father.

That is interesting LL.

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:12 pm

There's something rather sweet about that photo; maybe it's the way the present Duke admires his namesake's famous hair?

**Lamplighter** Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:17 pm

bb1 wrote:There's something rather sweet about that photo; maybe it's the way the present Duke admires his namesake's famous hair?

Prince Richard is very unroyal, he is a nice and pleasant person and not at all arrogant. I like him a lot. LL

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:28 pm

Me too. I really like him and his wife seems so lovely.

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:28 pm

I noticed the current Duke of Gloucester's tie.

Tudor's efforts to expunge the real Richard III from history seem to have, ultimately, been about as successful as Edward I's attempt to wipe out the memory of William Wallace from Scotland.

**lily** Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:34 pm

Oh yes. Nice and appropriate in every way.

Henry VII was an absolutely nasty tyrant. Have had my eyes opened to him even from Gregory's books.

**bb1** Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:42 pm

His judicial murder of Clarence's son is one of the genuinely foulest things in the history of that period. Easy to see where H8 got it from.

Sponsored content