The New Murrey and Blue blog

For All Society Members

, ,

Two Further Statements

You will have seen the latest messages from the Board regarding questions about our resignations and the motions we submitted not being allowed at the pre-AGM Zoom meeting – just as they have not been allowed at any meeting prior to this. It feels to us that the Board are continually kicking this down the road in the hope that members lose interest. The information they have put out has been a narrative of spin and misinformation, bearing little resemblance to the events we were involved in. When we withdrew from the investigation process we stated that it felt the conclusion had already been reached and we had completely lost confidence in it. You can now see why. Very sadly, the report itself reveals a deep-rooted bias, and a prejudice towards the membership in its discussion of ‘generalists’, ‘popularists’, ‘non-academics’ and ‘amateurs’.

As many of you know, several of us are suffering from ill health currently and we are only so desperately sorry that any opportunity to discuss our rejected motions prior to the AGM has now been removed. These were presented in the hope of the betterment of the Society going forward and so that what happened to us could never happen again.

Amanda Geary (former Chair), Philippa Langley (former Deputy Chair), Kim Harding (former Safeguarding Officer), Joanne Larner (former Facebook Page Co-ordinator), Janine Lawrence (former Bulletin Committee), Cris Connor (former Director)

______________________________________

The Society’s Articles do not legislate for disputes between Directors. It was therefore a surprise that the Board commissioned an ‘in-house’ investigation into complaints made by the six former Directors. This was an inquiry which lacked independence and credibility and the resultant procedural and conceptual problems were inevitable.
Despite concerns, the six former Directors were willing to engage with the process. They acted in good faith and were polite and professional at all times. Unfortunately the process did indeed prove to be flawed and unworkable leading to the six withdrawing from the inquiry.
‘Best practice’ should have dictated that the complaints were referred to an independent, external, professionally-accredited panel for investigation. In my opinion the Board must bear responsibility for the problems that beset this inquiry; it was never fit for purpose and its conclusions leave more questions than answers.

Jane Clarke

Subscribe to my newsletter

7 responses to “For All Society Members”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    My question is: are they all on the same page or just some of them? It smells of tyranny.. As regards the so called academics, do they know we don’t need them and we don’t like them? We have many knowledgeable people in the Society,, we can’t care less

    Like

    Reply
  2. mry4441 Avatar
    mry4441

    Do we know which former Directors were on the investigating panel?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      the panel was 2 serving directors and one recently retired

      Like

      Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am afraid all the infighting puts me off renewing membership.
    It seems to me the currant board are acting like dictatorship.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    lt seems to me as a member of the Norfolk branch for around forty years that the Richard lll Society has lost its way. The obsession with Philippa Langley assertion that her theory on the Princes in the Tower should be presented as fact is ludicrous. There is no evidence either way. She is entitled to her opinion but so is everyone else.

    The Rich lll Society must return to strict academic principles and scrutiny and dispense with private vanity projects from the deluded anx self serving.

    Stephen Bailey. Norfolk Vice Chairman.

    Like

    Reply
    1. jrlarner Avatar
      jrlarner

      Then you seem to be in the minority. It’s actually the opposite of what you say. Philippa had to jump through hoops to get her evidence approved to go on the website whereas a member of the Research Committee refused to even bother providing evidence when he wanted something on the website. It seems the Academic faction don’t need to give proof of their theories but Philippa, who was the one behind the finding of Richard, has had no respect given to her. Just because someone doesn’t have a history degree doesn’t mean they are inferior or can’t do valid research. The Society should accommodate both sides of this discussion. Your comments show your own bias, which is the very reason all this trouble has happened.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        Joanne, over here in the US, we get info, or I do, late, but I did see the email from the Board, read it with a sour taste in my mouth as the opening tone all on its own confirmed to me that their ‘investigation’ was, from the start, what we call a ‘snow job’ and they had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming only to wiggle like hooked fish in the end. I didn’t even bother to finish the email, ‘canned’ responses from the Board which sound as fatuous as they are empty waste time none of us have to spare. My membership comes up again in November (I timed it with Edward of Warwick’s appalling murder) and I have considered whether or not to let it go, however, I am not a member to support those individual who sent that letter to you and Philippa et al, I am a member supporting a new trial, as it were, for Richard, and if we are the jury, the investigators, the court clerks and reporters, interpreters and yes, many of us like Philippa endeavor to bring in witnesses who have NOT been heard, even once.

        Stay well, even with difficulties the objective is superior to the alternative: accepting the fiction that Henry VII was not a fraud from the moment he declared he was ‘king’ from 21 August 1485, a day when he was sitting on his sorry butt in France, when he was the king of nothing, waiting for his French masters to set him off with ships, armies and funding to invade England and oust an anointed English king. That prevarication which somehow the ‘scholars’ have so little interest in its full implication, allowed this grifter to seize estates, attaint, execute and imprison anyone who supported Richard.

        So no, hang in here Jo, this fight is not over.

        Beth

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment