And there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he wanted to be buried at York or at Westminster Abbey.
There is a small amount of circumstantial evidence, nowhere near enough for there to be any confidence concerning where he would have wanted to be buried. I've read it.
It's only those desperate for any evidence supporting York, the same people who will create non-existent 'descendants' of Richard III, who would class the evidence as strong. Even York academic Mark Ormrod classifies the belief that RIII wished to be buried in York as a myth.
There is a small amount of circumstantial evidence, nowhere near enough for there to be any confidence concerning where he would have wanted to be buried. I've read it.
It's only those desperate for any evidence supporting York, the same people who will create non-existent 'descendants' of Richard III, who would class the evidence as strong. Even York academic Mark Ormrod classifies the belief that RIII wished to be buried in York as a myth.
And despite that, he still supports Richard being buried in York.:)
And despite that, he still supports Richard being buried in York.:)
But he admits that there is no strong justification supporting a desire to have RIII buried in York. Go read what he actually says.
And then tell us why his wishes, which he admits are not supported by real evidence, should outweigh the decision of the academics who actually performed the dig and are following their plans as per their original application for a licence to exhume RIII's remains?
But he admits that there is no strong justification supporting a desire to have RIII buried in York. Go read what he actually says.
And then tell us why his wishes, which he admits are not supported by real evidence, should outweigh the decision of the academics who actually performed the dig and are following their plans as per their original application for a licence to exhume RIII's remains?
I posted the link to it. Days ago.
Leicester university made its name on the DNA research going on presumably in the Biology dept, back in the 1980s. But it has never been known for its archaeology dept. And judging by how they ballsed up that dig - they haven't improved much.
I think they probably should have been supervised by Profs from a more prestigious university on the dig. I wouldn't give owt they say too much weight, really.
It's always half term when Larry, Curly and Moe are about
Sorry but I dunno who they are. I thought I was old but they are from before even my time.:eek: Anyway, nurse probably thinks you should be in bed. Amazing that they have computers on the ward and everything.:)
I'm not asking when you posted a link to it, I'm asking if you've read what it actually says.
Leicester university made its name on the DNA research going on presumably in the Biology dept, back in the 1980s. But it has never been known for its archaeology dept. And judging by how they ballsed up that dig - they haven't improved much.
And in which way have they 'ballsed up that dig'?
I think they probably should have been supervised by Profs from a more prestigious university on the dig. I wouldn't give owt they say too much weight, really.
Apart from the fact that you don't like them keeping to the details stated in their original application for a licence to exhume the remains, what have they done wrong?
I'm not asking when you posted a link to it, I'm asking if you've read what it actually says.
And in which way have they 'ballsed up that dig'?
Apart from the fact that you don't like them keeping to the details stated in their original application for a licence to exhume the remains, what have they done wrong?
Yes. I have a degree in English. I am just about capable of reading.:)
The skull. didn't you see the programme about the dig? Or (to adopt your schoolmarmy tone) didn't you pay attention when you were watching?:D
And apparently the licence says he can be buried there or elsewhere.
Why are you so bothered anyway? What can it mean to you? What do you think Leicester could possibly gain from their tasteless grip on the remains?
Yes. I have a degree in English. I am just about capable of reading.:)
Then I presume you've avoiding actually discussing what Prof Ormrod said about it being a 'myth' that RIII wanted to be buried in York for other reasons then. What are they?
The skull. didn't you see the programme about the dig? Or (to adopt your schoolmarmy tone) didn't you pay attention when you were watching?:D
I did watch. Can you please explain exactly what it is that you considered to be 'ballsed up'. Oh, and perhaps some reliable third party criticism of the dig.
And apparently the licence says he can be buried there or elsewhere.
Why are you so bothered anyway? What can it mean to you? What do you think Leicester could possibly gain from their tasteless grip on the remains?
Good God. Have you seen the amount of lies and deceit in the pro-York propaganda. How on earth can you possibly call anyone else 'tasteless'? The mind boggles.
I reckon they did not give much thought to the terms of the licence because they did not expect them to find anything.
I agree. It was issued by a civil servant at the coroners office who probably rubber stamped it without any consideration of the potential ramifications.
I agree. It was issued by a civil servant at the coroners office who probably rubber stamped it without any consideration of the potential ramifications.
I agree. It was issued by a civil servant at the coroners office who probably rubber stamped it without any consideration of the potential ramifications.
Do you have any evidence for this? Or, have you just made this up with no basis, like all the other arguments pro-burial in York?
Bungitin says that "I reckon they did not give much thought to the terms of the licence because they did not expect them to find anything. "
I am not brain washed by modern media - I know my history backwards and forewards - are you just on here to have an argument? His modern day relatives want him buried in York, he is of the House of York - let his bones rest in York.
No, I'm not on here just to have an argument. You persist in posting incorrect information and pass it off as fact, so what do you expect? I was merely pointing out that despite me and several other posters correcting you about your "Richard of York" claim, you again posted the same incorrect information a couple of posts later in the thread, in a slightly different form. It was almost as if you thought we were suddenly going to turn around and say:
"Oh yes, you were right all along Goldberry, because the more you posted on DS the more we believed in your truth. How wrong were we to once believe that Duke of Gloucester nonsense that we read about in our history books.What were we thinking, Richard III, Duke of York, sounds far better than Richard Duke of Gloucester, therefore that is what we shall call him from now on and that's the end of it"
I think rather than "knowing your history backwards and forewards" as you put it, you've got it all back to front:)
I did watch. Can you please explain exactly what it is that you considered to be 'ballsed up'. Oh, and perhaps some reliable third party criticism of the dig.
Probably the bit where one of them (who's name escapes me - the lady with the long brown hair) is digging up the skeleton with a pickaxe.
Langley points to the skull and asks if the big hole in the front is what killed him, and the academic casually replies that the hole she's pointing to has only been there about ten minutes, she did it herself by accident when swinging the pickaxe.
I'd consider that to be a stupid mistake. Why on earth they thought that a pickaxe was a suitable tool to use to uncover a skeleton, beats me. They were comfortably below the level of tarmac and concrete by then.
I was merely pointing out that despite me and several other posters correcting you about your "Richard of York" claim, you again posted the same incorrect information a couple of posts later in the thread, in a slightly different form.
Richard's father was the Duke of York, and Goldberry is correct - he and his family were the House of York, even though Richard never held the title of Duke of York himself.
Probably the bit where one of them (who's name escapes me - the lady with the long brown hair) is digging up the skeleton with a pickaxe.
Langley points to the skull and asks if the big hole in the front is what killed him, and the academic casually replies that the hole she's pointing to has only been there about ten minutes, she did it herself by accident when swinging the pickaxe.
I'd consider that to be a stupid mistake. Why on earth they thought that a pickaxe was a suitable tool to use to uncover a skeleton, beats me. They were comfortably below the level of tarmac and concrete by then.
I shared a house with a load of archaeologists at uni. As I was watching that, I could just imagine their reactions to that!
It happened because his head was so much higher than the lower part of his body already uncovered.
They obviously wouldn't have used an axe if anybody thought they were near the skeleton.
Richard's father was the Duke of York, and Goldberry is correct - he and his family were the House of York, even though Richard never held the title of Duke of York himself.
Comments
Though the evidence for this seems to be ... well, a well-kept secret, to say the least.
Of course, if 0.21% of the UK population doesn't have to pay up to £14 each to see his bones, then that makes it all right.
Like I care.:D
There is a small amount of circumstantial evidence, nowhere near enough for there to be any confidence concerning where he would have wanted to be buried. I've read it.
It's only those desperate for any evidence supporting York, the same people who will create non-existent 'descendants' of Richard III, who would class the evidence as strong. Even York academic Mark Ormrod classifies the belief that RIII wished to be buried in York as a myth.
And despite that, he still supports Richard being buried in York.:)
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00TCNEeifhJquD/Solid-Straight-Drinking-Straw.jpg
I thought half term was over?
But he admits that there is no strong justification supporting a desire to have RIII buried in York. Go read what he actually says.
And then tell us why his wishes, which he admits are not supported by real evidence, should outweigh the decision of the academics who actually performed the dig and are following their plans as per their original application for a licence to exhume RIII's remains?
I posted the link to it. Days ago.
Leicester university made its name on the DNA research going on presumably in the Biology dept, back in the 1980s. But it has never been known for its archaeology dept. And judging by how they ballsed up that dig - they haven't improved much.
I think they probably should have been supervised by Profs from a more prestigious university on the dig. I wouldn't give owt they say too much weight, really.
Sorry but I dunno who they are. I thought I was old but they are from before even my time.:eek: Anyway, nurse probably thinks you should be in bed. Amazing that they have computers on the ward and everything.:)
I'm not asking when you posted a link to it, I'm asking if you've read what it actually says.
And in which way have they 'ballsed up that dig'?
Apart from the fact that you don't like them keeping to the details stated in their original application for a licence to exhume the remains, what have they done wrong?
Yes. I have a degree in English. I am just about capable of reading.:)
The skull. didn't you see the programme about the dig? Or (to adopt your schoolmarmy tone) didn't you pay attention when you were watching?:D
And apparently the licence says he can be buried there or elsewhere.
Why are you so bothered anyway? What can it mean to you? What do you think Leicester could possibly gain from their tasteless grip on the remains?
Then I presume you've avoiding actually discussing what Prof Ormrod said about it being a 'myth' that RIII wanted to be buried in York for other reasons then. What are they?
I did watch. Can you please explain exactly what it is that you considered to be 'ballsed up'. Oh, and perhaps some reliable third party criticism of the dig.
Good God. Have you seen the amount of lies and deceit in the pro-York propaganda. How on earth can you possibly call anyone else 'tasteless'? The mind boggles.
I agree. It was issued by a civil servant at the coroners office who probably rubber stamped it without any consideration of the potential ramifications.
It was issued by the Ministry of Justice. Details of the licence application are at http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/re-interrment
Do you have any evidence for this? Or, have you just made this up with no basis, like all the other arguments pro-burial in York?
Bungitin says that "I reckon they did not give much thought to the terms of the licence because they did not expect them to find anything. "
Except that the licence was applied for and granted by the MoJ after they had found the body. http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/re-interrment/documentation/statement-from-the-university-of-leicester While there was no proof that the body was Richard's then, clearly they had found something and there was a good chance that it was Richard III.
I don't think that's fair. You could call it tasteless that York are so determined to fight against the licence holders.
The whole battle over the poor King's remains is tasteless.
No, I'm not on here just to have an argument. You persist in posting incorrect information and pass it off as fact, so what do you expect? I was merely pointing out that despite me and several other posters correcting you about your "Richard of York" claim, you again posted the same incorrect information a couple of posts later in the thread, in a slightly different form. It was almost as if you thought we were suddenly going to turn around and say:
"Oh yes, you were right all along Goldberry, because the more you posted on DS the more we believed in your truth. How wrong were we to once believe that Duke of Gloucester nonsense that we read about in our history books.What were we thinking, Richard III, Duke of York, sounds far better than Richard Duke of Gloucester, therefore that is what we shall call him from now on and that's the end of it"
I think rather than "knowing your history backwards and forewards" as you put it, you've got it all back to front:)
Probably the bit where one of them (who's name escapes me - the lady with the long brown hair) is digging up the skeleton with a pickaxe.
Langley points to the skull and asks if the big hole in the front is what killed him, and the academic casually replies that the hole she's pointing to has only been there about ten minutes, she did it herself by accident when swinging the pickaxe.
I'd consider that to be a stupid mistake. Why on earth they thought that a pickaxe was a suitable tool to use to uncover a skeleton, beats me. They were comfortably below the level of tarmac and concrete by then.
Richard's father was the Duke of York, and Goldberry is correct - he and his family were the House of York, even though Richard never held the title of Duke of York himself.
http://www.timeref.com/hpr1000.htm
They obviously wouldn't have used an axe if anybody thought they were near the skeleton.
Shakespeare's "sonne of York" hints at that, too. Also, whatever titles you got given, you were still 'of' your father's House.