separator Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Case adjourned until the new year, what a waste of time and money.
Zingari Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 FFS. Why was it adjourned?! We're really getting the hump now !
separator Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 FFS. Why was it adjourned?! Something about Leicester city council wanted to be added to the judicial review so it could make representations regarding any reburial. The way this is going it'll be another 500 years before the old boy gets a proper burial.
ousefox Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Jesus is this still going on?! Being from York, I've hardly noticed anybody I know giving a toss. My Dad is a director at Visit York and has a PhD in Archaeology and it's barely been mentioned in the house. I probably think Leicester deserve to keep it but haven't heard all the arguments. The only think I would say is that a lot more people would get to see it in York - people will visit this along with all the other attractions. I'm just genuinely surprised there's such a to do about it.
Spudulike Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Something about Leicester city council wanted to be added to the judicial review so it could make representations regarding any reburial. The way this is going it'll be another 500 years before the old boy gets a proper burial. The 'old boy' had a proper burial 528 years ago. It's just about the re-interment of his remains. You can't be buried twice. Today was only about whether the MoJ licence was issued incorrectly. No decision about the re-interment site was to be discussed no matter how it's being reported. As it turned out, the PA representative applied to have Leicester City council named as a defendant rather than an 'interested party' that wouldn't be legally obliged to do as the court instructed. The judge was not happy but allowed the application regardless. Looks like another delaying tactic. Pathetic.
Spudulike Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Jesus is this still going on?! Being from York, I've hardly noticed anybody I know giving a toss. My Dad is a director at Visit York and has a PhD in Archaeology and it's barely been mentioned in the house. I probably think Leicester deserve to keep it but haven't heard all the arguments. The only think I would say is that a lot more people would get to see it in York - people will visit this along with all the other attractions. I'm just genuinely surprised there's such a to do about it. ... and a lot more people will have to pay to see it in York... the 'Pay-per-view-King'. No entrance fee at Leicester Cathedral. The York claim is based on fantasy and misinformation. He was NOT Richard of York, was NOT a Yorkshireman and never had a residence in York, never said that he wanted to be buried in York Minster (or anywhere else), had NO descendants despite what they claim, was buried in Leicester Grey Friars by the servants of the King of England, Henry VII. Your Dad will tell you that good archeological practice demands that human remains MUST be re-interred in the closest consecrated ground (in this case, Leicester Cathedral which is in the same parish as the Grey Friars). York Minster have openly stated that he should stay in Leicester and so has the Queen. This is all about a small group of trouble makers exploiting the judicial system to fulfill their own selfish fantasies and Yorkshire is best attitude. Never mind, eh, the good old taxpayers will pick up the tab.
Out Foxed Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 absolute joke. their "claim" should be a non starter.
davieG Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 Jesus is this still going on?! Being from York, I've hardly noticed anybody I know giving a toss. My Dad is a director at Visit York and has a PhD in Archaeology and it's barely been mentioned in the house. I probably think Leicester deserve to keep it but haven't heard all the arguments. The only think I would say is that a lot more people would get to see it in York - people will visit this along with all the other attractions. I'm just genuinely surprised there's such a to do about it. As spud said, if the can afford it. Combined Ticket (Minster and Tower) Adult £15 Seniors and Students £14 Child £5 (ages 8-16) Minster Family Pass (1 adult + up to 4 children) £10 Family Pass (2 adults + up to 4 children) £20 Adult £10 Seniors or Students £9
ousefox Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 As spud said, if the can afford it. I agree, it's ridiculous prices but more people will still see it in York despite this - whether or not this is 'right'. As I said, I'm not really that bothered where it goes but probably sway towards Leicester having it. Saying that, I most likely wouldn't make the effort to go and see it in Leicester and I'm not sure how many others from outside the city would. Maybe people are overestimating how many people want to visit it anyway. Would people go out there way to go to Leicester to see the remains of one king, when they can go to Windsor Castle or Westminster Abbey to see a fair few, once the initial buzz dies down?
Finnaldo Posted 26 November 2013 Posted 26 November 2013 I agree, it's ridiculous prices but more people will still see it in York despite this - whether or not this is 'right'. As I said, I'm not really that bothered where it goes but probably sway towards Leicester having it. Saying that, I most likely wouldn't make the effort to go and see it in Leicester and I'm not sure how many others from outside the city would. Maybe people are overestimating how many people want to visit it anyway. Would people go out there way to go to Leicester to see the remains of one king, when they can go to Windsor Castle or Westminster Abbey to see a fair few, once the initial buzz dies down? I think he's one of the most famous English Kings outside of England. I remember seeing quite a few articles and tv news stories on it from America. So I'd imagine that'll bring more people in. The problem with Leicester is that although it has a very interesting history, it's very unrepresented or ignored. It was the capital of the Corieltauvi (one of the British tribes pre-Roman occupation), an important settlement in Mercia, thought to be the administrative centre (capital pretty much) of the Five Boroughs of Danelaw, the Battle of Bosworth, and a Parliamentary stronghold during the Civil War. If these points were utilised it could improve Leicester's tourism ten fold, especially with a crown jewel like Richard III.
Rincewind Posted 27 November 2013 Posted 27 November 2013 I wouldnt pay those prices in York but also I would not be too bothered about going out my way to see the tomb in Leicester. Saw the exhibition. Nothing spectacular and I have never been Bosworth Field.
davieG Posted 28 November 2013 Posted 28 November 2013 City council and university at odds over who owns Richard III's bones Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/City-university-odds-owns-king-s-bones/story-20233001-detail/story.html#ixzz2lvfw64dK
Jimothy Posted 28 November 2013 Posted 28 November 2013 Great! In fighting is just what we need. If we can't sort out ourselves who owns the bones then we've got no hope.
Orkneyfox Posted 19 December 2013 Posted 19 December 2013 It's a frame up: http://newsthump.com/2012/09/13/south-yorkshire-police-coroner-claims-richard-iii-bones-show-victim-was-drunk/
davieG Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Richard III: Leicester City Council in U-turn over 'custodian' of king's bones claims By Leicester Mercury | Posted: December 21, 2013 By Peter Warzynski Remains found under a Leicester car park King Richard III Remains found under a Leicester car park Leicester City Council has said it no longer considers itself the custodian of the remains of King Richard III. It has also said it will not hold a public consultation into where the bones are reburied – something which it had previously said it was considering. The developments come after the authority surprised everyone last month when it claimed, to a packed hearing at London' High Court, to be the guardian of the 500-year-old bones. The city council had joined the University of Leicester, the Ministry of Justice and Leicester Cathedral at the hearing on November 25 to hear whether the exhumation licence used to decide the fate of the bones of the former monarch would stand. The Plantagenet Alliance, which brought the case to court, claimed the legal document should be quashed. However, the review never got under way because the council's barrister, Norman Palmer QC, unexpectedly told the court that the authority regarded itself "in charge" of the remains. As a result, a debate began over whether the authority's role in the legal proceedings should be upgraded from "interested party" to "defendant", and the case was adjourned to next year, on a date to be set. Now, however, the city council has reevaluated its argument and appealed to the court, retracting its claim that it legally controls the bones, in the hope the Bench does not make it a defendant. It has also written to the University of Leicester, a defendant in the case, confirming the university's archaeological services are the rightful custodians of the royal remains. A spokesman for the council said: "This is an incredibly important case and the hearing in November reflected that. "The city council has since taken further legal advice and it is our belief it is not appropriate for the authority to be included as a defendant in any further proceedings. "Clearly, the city council is very interested in this case, principally as the authority representing the interests of people living in Leicester. "We remain in full support of our partners at the University of Leicester and Leicester Cathedral, and of the reinterment plans covered by the Ministry of Justice's licence. "As such, we are not asserting any rights to determine where the remains of Richard III are reinterred. We believe this is the correct thing to do to support the aims of all the partners. "We have filed with the court our detailed response to the challenges raised by Plantagenet Alliance Limited. "We now await notification from the court as to when the final hearing will take place. "We will continue to do whatever we can to support our partners and expedite this review. A speedy resolution to this case is in everyone's interest." The Very Revd David Monteith, dean of Leicester Cathedral, which is also an interested party in the case, said: "We welcome the city's revised position in relation to evidence submitted to the judicial review. We're very pleased that this means all three key parties in Leicester – the cathedral, the city council and the university, are committed to the same outcome, namely that the Ministry of Justice exhumation licence commits us all to the reinterment of King Richard III in Leicester Cathedral, which is the right thing to do for the anointed king and for the nation. "We look forward to the learned judges, who will be deciding on judicial review, supporting this position, once they have an opportunity to engage with the substantial arguments of the matter." A spokesman for the University of Leicester said: "The University of Leicester continues to work closely with Leicester Cathedral and Leicester City Council in order to fulfil the terms of the licence issued by the Ministry of Justice. We are working together to reinter King Richard III in Leicester as stated right from the outset of the archaeological dig in 2012. "Until the point of reinterment, the remains will be held at a secure location at the University of Leicester, where our research is ongoing and will be published in academic peer review journals." Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Council-U-turn-custodian-king-s-bones/story-20352790-detail/story.html#ixzz2o7zqMXUY
davieG Posted 3 January 2014 Posted 3 January 2014 A new date has been set for the judicial review into the Richard III exhumation licence after the first hearing failed to get underway last year. The University of Leicester and the Ministry of Justice will visit the High Court, in London, on March 13, to argue the legality of the licence, which gives the university control of Richard III’s remains. They will take on the Plantagenet Alliance, which brought the case to court. The hearing is expected to last two days. RELATED ARTICLES Richard III: Leicester City Council in U-turn over 'custodian' of king's bones claims Richard III: Leicester Cathedral tomb plans 'not up to scratch' Richard III: High Court legal battle adjourned until 2014 Representatives from Leicester City Council and the Leicester Cathedral will also appear, but as interested parties - not defendants. In November, last year, High Court judges adjourned the review following an application by the Alliance, which claimed that Leicester City Council’s role in the case be upgraded. It said the council had a more important part to play after the authority claimed it was the rightful custodian of the royal bones - a claim it has since retracted. Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-New-date/story-20396313-detail/story.html#ixzz2pKptCeyj
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 4 January 2014 Posted 4 January 2014 Will it be another 500 years before our King;s remains are re interred?
Rincewind Posted 4 January 2014 Posted 4 January 2014 Probably, then a few more descendants will turn up claiming he loved Mars.
Finnaldo Posted 6 January 2014 Posted 6 January 2014 They could if dealt with this about a month in. Had they just put a couple of those PA numpties on Question Time, with a bunch of Historians in the crowd that actually know their stuff, they would have been ripped to shreds and that would have been the end to it.
MPH Posted 6 January 2014 Posted 6 January 2014 Richard III: Leicester City Council in U-turn over 'custodian' of king's bones claims By Leicester Mercury | Posted: December 21, 2013 By Peter Warzynski [*]Remains found under a Leicester car park [*] King Richard III [*] Remains found under a Leicester car park Bares a striking resemblance to Lord Farquhard from the Shrek Film...
Orkneyfox Posted 6 January 2014 Posted 6 January 2014 Here's a free online course abut the times of Richard 3: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/england-of-richard-third-2014
hairy Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 We may find out on Friday if there is to be an end to this:- Whatever the case, three judges will assemble in London on Thursday to hear both sides' arguments. It could end on Friday, with the Plantagenet Alliance's challenge thrown out and everything back on track for a reinterment in Leicester Cathedral later this year. Or the court could decide there should be a consultation with interested parties, restarting the whole process again and dragging the debate on for even longer - although at least providing a possible ending. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26526790
Chilwell_Fox Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 York does not even have an argument here. They have based their campaign on the fact he spent a lot of time there, they have no proof that it was Richard's desire to be buried in York. If they were that concerned about what could have happened to the remains of him they should have protested when the license was granted to the University of Leicester for the dig. It also would set a very dangerous archaeological precedent which goes against standard archaeological practice.
inckley fox Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 York does not even have an argument here. They have based their campaign on the fact he spent a lot of time there, they have no proof that it was Richard's desire to be buried in York. If they were that concerned about what could have happened to the remains of him they should have protested when the license was granted to the University of Leicester for the dig. It also would set a very dangerous archaeological precedent which goes against standard archaeological practice. Yes, it's a total non-argument. He was fond of York, even more so than he was fond of Leicester (though he also spent a lot of time there). Crucially, though, he was buried in Leicester. And while I would have preferred scientists to do their work at the site and return him to his original grave - making a separate monument at the spot - this would have depended on money which wasn't there at the time. So, in the absence of any serious suggestion that (a) these relatives even represent a significant fraction of his existing descendents (b) that their opinion should matter anyway © that he wanted to be buried in York (d) that there is any precedent for moving kingly remains without permission from the ruling monarch or (e) that the ruling monarch, or even her government, wants him to be buried in York... I'd say it's fairly straightforward stuff.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.