I'm stunned at the levels that the pro-York people are prepared to stoop to.
We're seeing more and more lies, and smears.
There are claims that he was Duke of York. There are claims that Leicester only want to hold on to him for financial reasons.
There are claims that the bones should go to York because that's where the tourists are. WTF? Perhaps they should dig up Stonehenge and the stone circle at Avebury and move those to York as well, so that it's convenient for the tourists.
Nobody has a actually come up with any evidence that RIII stated he wished to be buried in York. Nobody has been able to support the lies being spread that descendants of RIII have called for him to be buried in York. Both are obvious lies, and no pro-York people have been able to defend their claims.
There have been attempts to smear 'Leicester', and the university by casting doubt on their motives for having RIII buried in Leicester Cathedral. Again, WTF? That RIII would be re-interred in Leicester was a condition of them being allowed to exhume the bones. It would be simply very wrong for them not to do so.
The whole thing is way beyond a joke. As I said before, the underhand tactics, lies, and deceit by those pro-York are astonishing. Then after I say that, people come on here and just tell even more obvious lies and deceptions, and completely prove my point.
I'm stunned at the levels that the pro-York people are prepared to stoop to.
We're seeing more and more lies, and smears.
There are claims that he was Duke of York. There are claims that Leicester only want to hold on to him for financial reasons.
There are claims that the bones should go to York because that's where the tourists are. WTF? Perhaps they should dig up Stonehenge and the stone circle at Avebury and move those to York as well, so that it's convenient for the tourists.
Nobody has a actually come up with any evidence that RIII stated he wished to be buried in York. Nobody has been able to support the lies being spread that descendants of RIII have called for him to be buried in York. Both are obvious lies, and no pro-York people have been able to defend their claims.
There have been attempts to smear 'Leicester', and the university by casting doubt on their motives for having RIII buried in Leicester Cathedral. Again, WTF? That RIII would be re-interred in Leicester was a condition of them being allowed to exhume the bones. It would be simply very wrong for them not to do so.
The whole thing is way beyond a joke. As I said before, the underhand tactics, lies, and deceit by those pro-York are astonishing. Then after I say that, people come on here and just tell even more obvious lies and deceptions, and completely prove my point.
I'm stunned at the levels that the pro-York people are prepared to stoop to.
We're seeing more and more lies, and smears.
There are claims that he was Duke of York. There are claims that Leicester only want to hold on to him for financial reasons.
There are claims that the bones should go to York because that's where the tourists are. WTF? Perhaps they should dig up Stonehenge and the stone circle at Avebury and move those to York as well, so that it's convenient for the tourists.
Nobody has a actually come up with any evidence that RIII stated he wished to be buried in York. Nobody has been able to support the lies being spread that descendants of RIII have called for him to be buried in York. Both are obvious lies, and no pro-York people have been able to defend their claims.
There have been attempts to smear 'Leicester', and the university by casting doubt on their motives for having RIII buried in Leicester Cathedral. Again, WTF? That RIII would be re-interred in Leicester was a condition of them being allowed to exhume the bones. It would be simply very wrong for them not to do so.
The whole thing is way beyond a joke. As I said before, the underhand tactics, lies, and deceit by those pro-York are astonishing. Then after I say that, people come on here and just tell even more obvious lies and deceptions, and completely prove my point.
You talk about "lies" and yet you just told a big fat one yourself:
That RIII would be re-interred in Leicester was a condition of them being allowed to exhume the bones.
In fact, according to Soulsby himself, the exhumation licence states that:
"The remains shall, no later than August 31, 2014, be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum or else be reinterred at St Martin's Cathedral, or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place."
Therefore it is the choice of Leicester University to bury the remains in Leicester. It is not a condition of the exhumation.
I find the 'yorkists' fighting over the bones rather distasteful.
They want them interred in a place that charges admission yet claim others are using the bones for profit.
The Minster costs £20,000 a day to maintain and doesn't get any financial help from the government or from the Church of England. The East Front has recently undergone a maintenance programme that cost £23 million, including the preservation of the largest single expanse of medieval painted glass anywhere in the world.
Admission fee also includes entry into the crypt and the treasury as well as a new installation called The Orb, which looks at the work of John Thornton, the designer of much of the medieval glass. The Minster is a world-class visitor attraction. It is also free to residents of the city. For a family of four the entry fee works out at less than £5 each.
As far as I know, nearly all of England's great cathedrals charge for entry. Leicester's parish church doesn't fall into this category so it's hardly surprising it's 'free' to get in there.
I find the 'yorkists' fighting over the bones rather distasteful.
Almost as distasteful as Leicester councillor Ross Willmott wanting to find Wolsey's remains as they "would bring more tourists to the city". Almost as distasteful as Soulsby wanting an exact replica of Richard III's skeleton put on display at the visitor centre for paying guests to gawp at.
You talk about "lies" and yet you just told a big fat one yourself:
In fact, according to Soulsby himself, the exhumation licence states that:
Therefore it is the choice of Leicester University to bury the remains in Leicester. It is not a condition of the exhumation.
The exhumation licence was issued after the following request from the University of Leicester to exhume the remains. Note that it specifically states that the bones, if found, will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral.
Here's the licence itself. And yes you are right that the licence does include the more relaxed condition:
The remains shall, no later than 31 August 2014, be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum or else he reinterred at St Martin's Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place. In the meantime shall be kept safely, privately and decently by the University of Leicester, Archaeological Services under the control of a competent member of staff.
However, my point was that the University has acted correctly both legally and morally. To reinter the bones as they said they would in their original application for a licence is still the correct and moral thing to do. How can it be described as in any way improper?
And, now that I have received a challenge, and I have quoted correct information and full sources, and replied to it correctly and in full, will we see the pro-York people actually produce proper documentary evidence of their claims that there are descendants of Richard the III, or that there is direct evidence that Richard the III stated that he wanted to be buried in York. Or that he was Duke of York, or that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons, or any of the other lies?
The Minster costs £20,000 a day to maintain and doesn't get any financial help from the government or from the Church of England. The East Front has recently undergone a maintenance programme that cost £23 million, including the preservation of the largest single expanse of medieval painted glass anywhere in the world.
None of this changes the fact that York would put the bones in a place with an admission charge to make money from people. Leicester is not. Which was the original point that you are supposedly responding to.
The exhumation licence was issued after the following request from the University of Leicester to exhume the remains. Note that it specifically states that the bones, if found, will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral.
Here's the licence itself. And yes you are right that the licence does include the more relaxed condition:
However, my point was that the University has acted correctly both legally and morally. To reinter the bones as they said they would in their original application for a licence is still the correct and moral thing to do. How can it be described as in any way improper?
And, now that I have received a challenge, and I have quoted correct information and full sources, and replied to it correctly and in full, will we see the pro-York people actually produce proper documentary evidence of their claims that there are descendants of Richard the III, or that there is direct evidence that Richard the III stated that he wanted to be buried in York. Or that he was Duke of York, or that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons, or any of the other lies?
As I said, it's the University of Leicester's choice. It's also morally repugnant that the fate of a medieval king's remains can be decided by a provincial academic department.
None of this changes the fact that York would put the bones in a place with an admission charge to make money from people. Leicester is not. Which was the original point that you are supposedly responding to.
The point seemed to be that York Minster was profiteering by charging for admission.
I find the 'yorkists' fighting over the bones rather distasteful.
They want them interred in a place that charges admission yet claim others are using the bones for profit.
I don't think your summary of his point is reasonable given what is written. Dome mentions 'charging admission' which you yourself admit is correct. 'Profiteering' is a straw man.
As I said, it's the University of Leicester's choice. It's also morally repugnant that the fate of a medieval king's remains can be decided by a provincial academic department.
That the University was given a choice is a decision made by the Ministry of Justice. The University however did not exercise its choice, but stuck to what was said in the original application. The full text of application and licence are given above. Apart from you creating moral repugnance out of nothing because you didn't get the bones for York Minister to earn money from, what is actually wrong with the actions of the Ministry of Justice and the University?
Nobody has a actually come up with any evidence that RIII stated he wished to be buried in York.
I think the Yorkists have been operating on the principle that if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually come to believe that it's true. A super-charged version of what Lewis Carroll (somebody else used to writing fantasy) called the Bellman's Rule.
I think the Yorkists have been operating on the principle that if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually come to believe that it's true. A super-charged version of what Lewis Carroll (somebody else used to writing fantasy) called the Bellman's Rule.
Why the constant assumptions that we're all Yorkists? I'm a Lancastrian.
They're written quite clearly in this thread, numerous times already.
No: what's written quite clearly in this thread is the assertion, by various people, that Richard III allegedly desired to be buried in York.
Unfortunately - unfortunately for the Yorkist crew, I mean - no actual evidence for this claim has been provided ever since it first reared its head in post #13. There's a difference between "It is a fact that Richard III left reliable testimony that he wanted to be buried in York" and "It is a fact that some people think that he left reliable testimony that he wanted to be buried in York."
Speaking personally, I don't have an opinion on Leicester, or its' people. I've never visited, so can't say.
Nobody's favourite choir master has never visited Leicester either - and this is by his own testimony - thought this didn't prevent him from labelling it "stinking Leicester" [sic] in #25.
A marketing expert Nicky Stephen says that he's considering the marketing implications. In an extremely short article that only mentions him. It's not exactly surprising that a single person who is a 'marketing expert' is considering financial implications.
And the second article has a title 'Milking Richard III for all he's worth'. If you actually read the article, she's saying that we should 'milk Richard III' for the 'celebrity', because this will publicise RIII, and many other reasons.
This does not in any way show that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons. In fact, the second article shows the deep interest in Leicester History that the find has promoted amongst local people. Which is obviously more important to most people (perhaps even 'marketing experts' when they're not working), rather than financial benefits which will be small. £4 million sounds a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to (say) the council's budget.
The financial side is clearly not a major factor for the majority of people in Leicester. I attended the dig, and the exhibition, and it was all totally free.
A marketing expert Nicky Stephen says that he's considering the marketing implications. In an extremely short article that only mentions him. It's not exactly surprising that a single person who is a 'marketing expert' is considering financial implications.
And the second article has a title 'Milking Richard III for all he's worth'. If you actually read the article, she's saying that we should 'milk Richard III' for the 'celebrity', because this will publicise RIII, and many other reasons.
This does not in any way show that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons. In fact, the second article shows the deep interest in Leicester History that the find has promoted amongst local people. Which is obviously more important to most people (perhaps even 'marketing experts' when they're not working), rather than financial benefits which will be small. £4 million sounds a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to (say) the council's budget.
The financial side is clearly not a major factor for the majority of people in Leicester. I attended the dig, and the exhibition, and it was all totally free.
The council can waste as much money as it wants. It still won't get sightseers to visit Leicester. I wonder how long it'll take for the council to claw back the £850,000 it's already blown on that old school building, not even counting the costs of converting it into a 'visitor attraction'. (And sorry, I simply don't believe the 'majority' of people in Leicester are remotely interested. The low numbers that have turned up to see the current exhibition at the Guildhall proves that.)
The council can waste as much money as it wants. It still won't get sightseers to visit Leicester. I wonder how long it'll take for the council to claw back the £850,000 it's already blown on that old school building, not even counting the costs of converting it into a 'visitor attraction'. (And sorry, I simply don't believe the 'majority' of people in Leicester are remotely interested. The low numbers that have turned up to see the current exhibition at the Guildhall proves that.)
I really wouldn't worry yourself about somewhere you've never even been to.
Comments
We're seeing more and more lies, and smears.
There are claims that he was Duke of York. There are claims that Leicester only want to hold on to him for financial reasons.
There are claims that the bones should go to York because that's where the tourists are. WTF? Perhaps they should dig up Stonehenge and the stone circle at Avebury and move those to York as well, so that it's convenient for the tourists.
Nobody has a actually come up with any evidence that RIII stated he wished to be buried in York. Nobody has been able to support the lies being spread that descendants of RIII have called for him to be buried in York. Both are obvious lies, and no pro-York people have been able to defend their claims.
There have been attempts to smear 'Leicester', and the university by casting doubt on their motives for having RIII buried in Leicester Cathedral. Again, WTF? That RIII would be re-interred in Leicester was a condition of them being allowed to exhume the bones. It would be simply very wrong for them not to do so.
The whole thing is way beyond a joke. As I said before, the underhand tactics, lies, and deceit by those pro-York are astonishing. Then after I say that, people come on here and just tell even more obvious lies and deceptions, and completely prove my point.
Thankyou for wording it better than I ever could.
You talk about "lies" and yet you just told a big fat one yourself:
In fact, according to Soulsby himself, the exhumation licence states that:
Therefore it is the choice of Leicester University to bury the remains in Leicester. It is not a condition of the exhumation.
They want them interred in a place that charges admission yet claim others are using the bones for profit.
The Minster costs £20,000 a day to maintain and doesn't get any financial help from the government or from the Church of England. The East Front has recently undergone a maintenance programme that cost £23 million, including the preservation of the largest single expanse of medieval painted glass anywhere in the world.
Admission fee also includes entry into the crypt and the treasury as well as a new installation called The Orb, which looks at the work of John Thornton, the designer of much of the medieval glass. The Minster is a world-class visitor attraction. It is also free to residents of the city. For a family of four the entry fee works out at less than £5 each.
As far as I know, nearly all of England's great cathedrals charge for entry. Leicester's parish church doesn't fall into this category so it's hardly surprising it's 'free' to get in there.
Almost as distasteful as Leicester councillor Ross Willmott wanting to find Wolsey's remains as they "would bring more tourists to the city". Almost as distasteful as Soulsby wanting an exact replica of Richard III's skeleton put on display at the visitor centre for paying guests to gawp at.
The exhumation licence was issued after the following request from the University of Leicester to exhume the remains. Note that it specifically states that the bones, if found, will be reburied in Leicester Cathedral.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/burials-and-coroners/Application-to-exhume-human-remains.pdf
Here's the licence itself. And yes you are right that the licence does include the more relaxed condition:
However, my point was that the University has acted correctly both legally and morally. To reinter the bones as they said they would in their original application for a licence is still the correct and moral thing to do. How can it be described as in any way improper?
And, now that I have received a challenge, and I have quoted correct information and full sources, and replied to it correctly and in full, will we see the pro-York people actually produce proper documentary evidence of their claims that there are descendants of Richard the III, or that there is direct evidence that Richard the III stated that he wanted to be buried in York. Or that he was Duke of York, or that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons, or any of the other lies?
None of this changes the fact that York would put the bones in a place with an admission charge to make money from people. Leicester is not. Which was the original point that you are supposedly responding to.
As I said, it's the University of Leicester's choice. It's also morally repugnant that the fate of a medieval king's remains can be decided by a provincial academic department.
The point seemed to be that York Minster was profiteering by charging for admission.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19947894
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/vikki-geary/leicester-milking-richard-iii_b_2723472.html
Here is exactly what Dome said, cut and pasted.
I don't think your summary of his point is reasonable given what is written. Dome mentions 'charging admission' which you yourself admit is correct. 'Profiteering' is a straw man.
That the University was given a choice is a decision made by the Ministry of Justice. The University however did not exercise its choice, but stuck to what was said in the original application. The full text of application and licence are given above. Apart from you creating moral repugnance out of nothing because you didn't get the bones for York Minister to earn money from, what is actually wrong with the actions of the Ministry of Justice and the University?
Apart from a lack of due diligence, and failure to consult the public about what should happen to a King of England?
Why the constant assumptions that we're all Yorkists? I'm a Lancastrian.
Unfortunately - unfortunately for the Yorkist crew, I mean - no actual evidence for this claim has been provided ever since it first reared its head in post #13. There's a difference between "It is a fact that Richard III left reliable testimony that he wanted to be buried in York" and "It is a fact that some people think that he left reliable testimony that he wanted to be buried in York."
Nobody's favourite choir master has never visited Leicester either - and this is by his own testimony - thought this didn't prevent him from labelling it "stinking Leicester" [sic] in #25.
Plenty of evidence has been provided, it's up to you whether or not you choose to accept it. Accusing others of lying changes nothing.
A marketing expert Nicky Stephen says that he's considering the marketing implications. In an extremely short article that only mentions him. It's not exactly surprising that a single person who is a 'marketing expert' is considering financial implications.
And the second article has a title 'Milking Richard III for all he's worth'. If you actually read the article, she's saying that we should 'milk Richard III' for the 'celebrity', because this will publicise RIII, and many other reasons.
This does not in any way show that Leicester only wants the bones for financial reasons. In fact, the second article shows the deep interest in Leicester History that the find has promoted amongst local people. Which is obviously more important to most people (perhaps even 'marketing experts' when they're not working), rather than financial benefits which will be small. £4 million sounds a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to (say) the council's budget.
The financial side is clearly not a major factor for the majority of people in Leicester. I attended the dig, and the exhibition, and it was all totally free.
2. He doesn't have any descendants.
Why should they 'consult the public' about what should happen to a King of England? Particularly one who died 500 years ago.
And how did the Ministry of Justice fail in any way concerning 'due dilligence'?
The council can waste as much money as it wants. It still won't get sightseers to visit Leicester. I wonder how long it'll take for the council to claw back the £850,000 it's already blown on that old school building, not even counting the costs of converting it into a 'visitor attraction'. (And sorry, I simply don't believe the 'majority' of people in Leicester are remotely interested. The low numbers that have turned up to see the current exhibition at the Guildhall proves that.)
Why shouldn't they? He was the King of England, not the King of Leicester...
I'm off to bed. Night!