Is Leicester really a fitting resting place for Richard III?

12467237

Comments

  • WhiteFangWhiteFang Posts: 3,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D***** wrote: »
    If it was in his will that he was to be buried in York, it's fitting and the right thing to do to grant him that wish 500 years on.

    I'll be honest and say that Leicester is unsuitable as it really isn't a particularly interesting and pleasant place. You'll probably get a lot of school trips to Leicester to see it and some extra people might visit but will it really draw in numbers? York is a place people would happily visit anyway. It should be there and his will should be respected.

    All I can think of is someone in Leicester doing a Homer Simpson and singing 'See the angel, see the angel, see the angel...' and hoping for a decent pay day.

    lol..Yes. York it should be.
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    I thought it was very noticeable at the press conference that they shoe-horned the word "Leicester" into every other sentence! Seemed a bit weird. I suppose the place has low self esteem, or summat. That was certainly how it came across.

    Leicester University should be proud of its history re. DNA research, and it was very fitting for them to do the investigation. But time to send him back to Yorkshire, if that was his wish. Put it this way, if a recent murder victim whose body had been desecrated, was found buried under a car park a hundred miles away from where that person had belonged, and wished to be buried - people would find it objectionable that they were buried where they were murdered, simply because that is where they were found. The passage of time makes no difference as this is someone who had expressed where they wanted to be buried.

    Maybe Leicester could think of some kind of museum display, or Jorvik-style 'Dick III' destination if they are so determined to cash in on this - instead of engaging in this unseemly wrangling for pilgrims' money, which just makes them look bad.

    He wasn't murdered, he died in battle for the throne. A power hungry despot.

    Did Saddam Hussain or OBL get buried where they wanted?
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I doubt having him buried there would attract them a single extra tourist, apart from the creepy 'Ricardian' ladies who will go there anyway, even if it is just to sniff the tarmac of the Holy Carpark.

    Leicester is grim. No-one would go there for tourism.
  • Phoenix LazarusPhoenix Lazarus Posts: 17,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gary Lineker? Showaddywaddy? Englebert Humperdinck? Developing the DNA fingerprint at the university?

    Ah yes-and the Elephant Man, John Merrick.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    He wasn't murdered, he died in battle for the throne. A power hungry despot.

    Did Saddam Hussain or OBL get buried where they wanted?

    Maybe you can point to the sentence where I said he was.:D
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ah yes-and the Elephant Man, John Merrick.

    Blimey, that means Showaddywaddy are actually the most recent famous products of Leicester.:eek:
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Maybe you can point to the sentence where I said he was.:D

    You compared him to a murder victim. What was the point of that?
  • D*****D***** Posts: 3,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    I doubt having him buried there would attract them a single extra tourist, apart from the creepy 'Ricardian' ladies who will go there anyway, even if it is just to sniff the tarmac of the Holy Carpark.

    Leicester is grim. No-one would go there for tourism.

    Leicester is grim I agree but there are cities near it that aren't much nicer but still can attract people.

    Nottingham - sort of the capital of the East Midlands, good for shopping, people would go to see some of the big concerts/ gigs that are on.

    Derby - people stay there due to its proximity to the Peak District.

    Birmingham - large international city and at least attracts people for work/ business meetings.

    No real reason to go to Leicester :confused:
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    I doubt having him buried there would attract them a single extra tourist, apart from the creepy 'Ricardian' ladies who will go there anyway, even if it is just to sniff the tarmac of the Holy Carpark.

    Leicester is grim. No-one would go there for tourism.

    I don't believe your personal views of Leicester are relevant here. :p
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OMG, does this mean when the lead singer from Showaddywaddy dies, we have to bury him in York Minster?:eek:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 73
    Forum Member
    The government should step in and order Leicester to give up the remains for reburial in a suitable location i.e. Westminster Abbey or York Minster

    It (the Ministry of Justice) has already stepped in, by issuing a licence to Leicester University (not the City Council).
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    19Nick68 wrote: »
    Now lets have a look at how much it would actually cost to visit shall we....

    York :eek:

    Minster

    Family Pass (1 adult + up to 4 children) £9
    Family Pass (2 adults + up to 4 children) £18
    Adult £9
    Seniors or Students £8


    Leicester :)

    Entrance is free, but all donations are appreciated.


    I don't think the good citizens of Leicester have to say much more. Feel FREE to pop in and have a look whenever you're in the area.

    Why the devil would anyone pay to go into Leicester 'cathedral' when there's sod all to see there?? And I wonder if it'll stay 'free' when the bones of the medieval king are buried there...

    And to compare Leicester's paltry cathedral with York Minster is laughable. York Minster is one of the finest Gothic buildings in Europe and Leicester cathedral...well, isn't.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I do not see the problem. The guy stated where he wanted to be buried. They have found his bones. Respect his wishes and send him to York.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Chunter wrote: »
    It (the Ministry of Justice) has already stepped in, by issuing a licence to Leicester University (not the City Council).

    That was before the identification was confirmed. Now we know it's Richard III and it puts quite a different light on the situation.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    I don't believe your personal views of Leicester are relevant here. :p

    Ah tough. I do.:D
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    I do not see the problem. The guy stated where he wanted to be buried. They have found his bones. Respect his wishes and send him to York.

    Why? He was an evil king who killed his nephews, why should he be romanticised some 500 years later?
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    Why? He was an evil king who killed his nephews, why should he be romanticised some 500 years later?

    Well no proof of that but TBH, he'd have been an idiot if he hadn't offed them.:)
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Ah tough. I do.:D

    Tell it to the council! Leicester City Council! :p
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    allaboard wrote: »
    Plus our solid gold Showaddywaddy statue!!!

    Solid gold...that would last 5 mins in Leicester city centre!! It would end up in one of the variety of cash 4 Gold shops and melted down pronto :D
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    Tell it to the council! Leicester City Council! :p

    Why? They must know already they don't have a tourist trade.:D
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Well no proof of that but TBH, he'd have been an idiot if he hadn't offed them.:)

    And now that its proven he was a hunchback everything else must be true, evil man!
    Poor Shakespeare being given all that unjustified flak for telling the truth!
  • LykkieLiLykkieLi Posts: 6,644
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Why? They must know already they don't have a tourist trade.:D

    They do now. :cool:
  • VerenceVerence Posts: 104,586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Michael Ibsen.

    There's also the Australians descended from Richard's other brother, George, Duke of Clarence
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    Why? He was an evil king who killed his nephews, why should he be romanticised some 500 years later?

    He's only seen as evil because he is alleged to have killed his nephew
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    And now that its proven he was a hunchback everything else must be true, evil man!
    Poor Shakespeare being given all that unjustified flak for telling the truth!

    He had a curved spine not a hunchback
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LykkieLi wrote: »
    And now that its proven he was a hunchback everything else must be true, evil man!
    Poor Shakespeare being given all that unjustified flak for telling the truth!

    Blimey if he is a child murderer just because he had mild scoliosis, what crimes do you think Leicester's own John Merrick committed?:D
  • susie-4964susie-4964 Posts: 23,143
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    I doubt having him buried there would attract them a single extra tourist, apart from the creepy 'Ricardian' ladies who will go there anyway, even if it is just to sniff the tarmac of the Holy Carpark.

    Leicester is grim. No-one would go there for tourism.

    I appreciate that they wouldn't have found the body at all if it wasn't for the Ricardian ladies' obsession, and for that I'm grateful. Having got that over, I'd have to say that they all came over as total nutjobs last night. Richard wasn't a tyrant, he wasn't a saint, he was just what people were 550 years ago, and no worse than most. To try to attribute modern motives to him is plain stupid. The Ricardians are probably complaining right now on their website that Richard didn't have spinal curvature, it's all a plot by the scientists to blacken his name.

    Right, back to the topic - I think Richard should be buried in York Minster. He was Richard of York, he should go back there. Seems quite simple to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.