Nothing new here and why should he have anything more to say about it tomorrow?
I think the point is it is a new document - which means others may yet come to light.:) I wouldn't panic - it won't make any difference. But maybe someone somewhere in an archive one day will stumble on something more unequivocal. I'm guessing he has more to say about it tomorrow because it's published tomorrow. Magazines like you to promo. Pretty obvious.
But the letter doesn't take us forward. It talks about what Richard wanted the priests to do with regard to prayers etc. There is no PS on the bottom referring to his desire to be buried in this particular chantry.
This proposed chantry at York has now reached the status of an urban myth. People are always saying Richard wanted to be buried at York/we know what his wishes are/this was going to be his burial place.
All of this, as has been pointed out countless times on this and other threads across the Internet, is not fact - at best it is an 'inferred assumption' - or in laymen's terms - a guess.
But the letter doesn't take us forward. It talks about what Richard wanted the priests to do with regard to prayers etc. There is no PS on the bottom referring to his desire to be buried in this particular chantry.
This proposed chantry at York has now reached the status of an urban myth. People are always saying Richard wanted to be buried at York/we know what his wishes are/this was going to be his burial place.
All of this, as has been pointed out countless times on this and other threads across the Internet, is not fact - at best it is an 'inferred assumption' - or in laymen's terms - a guess.
I don't think anyone here is inferring it does, and it is hard to comment til we can see a full transcript and how much hard evidence he had for chantries -> mausoleums. The point is, it goes to show even after all this time, and all the books written about him for the past one hundred years, new primary sources can come to light. That's fascinating for any historian. It won't make a jot of difference to the outcome here but how great would it be, one day, for someone in the archives somewhere, to stumble upon a more explicit will, or direct reference to his actual wishes.
As I said upthread, if all we care about is history and precedent then the history and precedent for kings killed in action is to be buried away from the battle site, maybe hundreds of miles away, in a place that mattered in life. History is of course always written by the victors. Etc etc. But there is a very real sense for someone who isn't a pedantic lawyer but an historian, that it is the last outrage the Tudors have managed to perpetuate, hundreds of years on, where he will be buried in a place where the worst thing possible, happened to him and he had no connection in life - apart from it being the site where he happened to be killed.
I think you're right about things turning up - look at Mancini - not found until the 1930s. I am sure there is a lot of information hiding in records somewhere. For example, a record of where Edward of Middleham was buried, would be a good start.
I think what has driven people mad over the past months is the insistence by some that the inferred assumption made on the existing information available is FACT when it patently is not. That and the dreadful attacks on Leicester and its people which sometimes verge on the racist and libelous.
The PA are now conspicuous by their silence; presumably no lawyer worth their salt would stake their legal reputation on taking on a further unfounded appeal unless they're as barking as the PA!!
They're very active on private pages. Will post more when I have permission to do so.
Oh and once again DPS no problem with anyone having an opinion (after all that's what the forum is all about) but conflating fact with fiction re Richard's actual wishes yet again regarding his burial does you no favours at all. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence re the chantry and 100 priests etc but no actual direct evidence of his final wishes. You can keep saying it until you're blue in the face but please don't keep saying it as if it is fact. There could have been a variety of reasons for establishing the chantry. It's all immaterial in a sense though as York don't want him anyway and as he's being re-interred in accordance with sound archaeological and religious practice in Leicester and that's fine by me and not just because I supported a Leicester re-interrment either.
Those are your opinions.There's enough circumstantial evidence of his inferred wishes to state confidently that York was his choice. And this letter only adds to that. No amount of denial of the evidence on your part will make it stop being true.
But the letter doesn't take us forward. It talks about what Richard wanted the priests to do with regard to prayers etc. There is no PS on the bottom referring to his desire to be buried in this particular chantry.
This proposed chantry at York has now reached the status of an urban myth. People are always saying Richard wanted to be buried at York/we know what his wishes are/this was going to be his burial place.
All of this, as has been pointed out countless times on this and other threads across the Internet, is not fact - at best it is an 'inferred assumption' - or in laymen's terms - a guess.
It adds to the weight of circumstantial evidence pointing to his wanting to be buried in York Minster. Most historians agree that he would've wanted to be buried in York, based on their knowledge of his life, and the historical and contemporary evidence. Those who know far more about Richard, than either of us.
I think what has driven people mad over the past months is the insistence by some that the inferred assumption made on the existing information available is FACT when it patently is not. That and the dreadful attacks on Leicester and its people which sometimes verge on the racist and libelous.
His life and connections with York and Yorkshire, are documented fact.
DPS - no one denies Richard had a connection with Yorkshire - it's a fact. Opinions of historians are just opinions - they are still based on inferred assumptions BECAUSE there is NO EVIDENCE that Richard wished to be buried in York, especially after he became king of England - not king of Yorkshire.
DPS - no one denies Richard had a connection with Yorkshire - it's a fact. Opinions of historians are just opinions - they are still based on inferred assumptions BECAUSE there is NO EVIDENCE that Richard wished to be buried in York, especially after he became king of England - not king of Yorkshire.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and denying it won't make it go away.
Just realised, the article stating that the BBC History Magazine article is out tomorrow, was posted yesterday. So the magazine article's out today, not tomorrow. My mistake.
I think you're right about things turning up - look at Mancini - not found until the 1930s. I am sure there is a lot of information hiding in records somewhere. For example, a record of where Edward of Middleham was buried, would be a good start.
I think what has driven people mad over the past months is the insistence by some that the inferred assumption made on the existing information available is FACT when it patently is not. That and the dreadful attacks on Leicester and its people which sometimes verge on the racist and libelous.
I don't think you can libel a place.;-) As for race, it's never come into my posts - I don't think it's an issue. I spent most of my career working with Asian kids in another Midlands inner city. I think this is everyone's history and the fact Leicester is more diverse than York is an irrelevance. I don't agree with pro-Yorkists who have made statements I too would consider racist. In a way that is a handy distraction from the real argument, so they have done themselves no favours with that, either.
Re. primary sources this is what I do now, quite often, bring to light primary sources no-one else has published, or researched although my period of interest is the late 18thC early 19thC and so I wouldn't pretend to know what sources are extant for the 15thC and what might feasibly still be lurking. As archives increasingly get digitised, it is possible new material may turn up and to me that is so exciting! How likely it is that anything new could turn up from Richard III, I dunno. I have always assumed that the Ricardians (for whom I have no love, never have had) had found everything to be found but then if you think about it, a lot of books have been written by amateurs - I know several published writers whose field is this period of history and, frankly, am not impressed. So it is possible more could come to light.
It won't change a thing in terms of re-interment but it is quite exciting to think something may yet turn up.
It won't change a thing in terms of re-interment but it is quite exciting to think something may yet turn up.
It might if a copy of his will has survived somwhere. Tudor tried to destroy all copies of Titulus Regius, but at least one survived. So even though he would've done the same with Richard's will, there may be one found yet.
It might if a copy of his will has survived somwhere. Tudor tried to destroy all copies of Titulus Regius, but at least one survived. So even though he would've done the same with Richard's will, there may be one found yet.
It still wouldn't change anything in my opinion even if years down the line a copy of his will did turn up stating that he wished to be buried in York. It is highly unlikely that his bones would be dug up again and moved to York (or anywhere else for that matter). His re-interrment in Leicester (whether you agree or not on the location) is based on sound archaeological, religious and legal grounds and that won't change even if his last will and testament is discovered years from now, expressly stating his burial wishes.
I don't think you can libel a place.;-) As for race, it's never come into my posts - I don't think it's an issue. I spent most of my career working with Asian kids in another Midlands inner city. I think this is everyone's history and the fact Leicester is more diverse than York is an irrelevance. I don't agree with pro-Yorkists who have made statements I too would consider racist. In a way that is a handy distraction from the real argument, so they have done themselves no favours with that, either.
I wasn't referring to your posts, Hogzilla, but if you look on the Internet there are some very disturbing remarks about Leicester and its population. There have also been conspiracy theories developed to explain why the JR decision was the way it was. None of it is pretty to read. I agree, it hasn't advanced the pro-York case at all and has had the opposite effect in some cases.
However, it is very wearying to keep reading that sort of stuff and the general public will soon get tired of what to them seems to be a storm in a teacup.
It adds to the weight of circumstantial evidence pointing to his wanting to be buried in York Minster. Most historians agree that he would've wanted to be buried in York, based on their knowledge of his life, and the historical and contemporary evidence. Those who know far more about Richard, than either of us.
You have a touching faith in historians. Do you agree, then with historian Michael Hicks who thinks Richard was a tyrant, a serial incestor and murderer of the princes? He is a qualified historian, has knowledge of Richard's life, and has access to the same sources as everyone else. So must his opinion be regarded as fact because he is a historian?
Historians are just as much formulators of 'evidence' based on interpretation as ordinary people. Some of them are just as guilty of presenting their opinions/assumptions as fact.
You have a touching faith in historians. Do you agree, then with historian Michael Hicks who thinks Richard was a tyrant, a serial incestor and murderer of the princes? He is a qualified historian, has knowledge of Richard's life, and has access to the same sources as everyone else. So must his opinion be regarded as fact because he is a historian?
Historians are just as much formulators of 'evidence' based on interpretation as ordinary people. Some of them are just as guilty of presenting their opinions/assumptions as fact.
Actually looking at how much he was willing to pay for prayers makes it more likely IMO.
It still wouldn't change anything in my opinion even if years down the line a copy of his will did turn up stating that he wished to be buried in York. It is highly unlikely that his bones would be dug up again and moved to York (or anywhere else for that matter). His re-interrment in Leicester (whether you agree or not on the location) is based on sound archaeological, religious and legal grounds and that won't change even if his last will and testament is discovered years from now, expressly stating his burial wishes.
I expect the original Just Giving page set up by Richard III to crowd fund his chantry to turn up any day now.
I wasn't referring to your posts, Hogzilla, but if you look on the Internet there are some very disturbing remarks about Leicester and its population. There have also been conspiracy theories developed to explain why the JR decision was the way it was. None of it is pretty to read. I agree, it hasn't advanced the pro-York case at all and has had the opposite effect in some cases.
However, it is very wearying to keep reading that sort of stuff and the general public will soon get tired of what to them seems to be a storm in a teacup.
Ah yes, I know you didn't mean me but the issue has come up on this thread, and that was something I was uncomfortable with. I also don't agree with conspiracy theories - as you say, these things backfire. Once you can be portrayed as 'eccentric', no-one listens to you anymore (Ricardians, above all people, should know that!)
TBH I don't think 'the general public' care either way. They never would have.
This was always a debate largely between people who love history - and people who love Leicester. With that third element of people who get a frisson from any kind of vituperative discussion.
Even though on the losing side, I have loved this discussion here and it gives me hope that a lot of people love history passionately.
But the letter doesn't take us forward. It talks about what Richard wanted the priests to do with regard to prayers etc. There is no PS on the bottom referring to his desire to be buried in this particular chantry.
This proposed chantry at York has now reached the status of an urban myth. People are always saying Richard wanted to be buried at York/we know what his wishes are/this was going to be his burial place.
All of this, as has been pointed out countless times on this and other threads across the Internet, is not fact - at best it is an 'inferred assumption' - or in laymen's terms - a guess.
I'm half expecting the fanatic wing of the PA will now do something completely daft like get hold of an old piece of wallpaper, daub it in tea and gravy browning, get a quill and then write on it in 'gothic' script and in appalling 'medieval' English something to this effect:
"I Richard ye thirde ye Kinge of Englande do hearbye and heretofore requeste that my worshipfulle and worldly remains be interred in ye goodly minster churche of St Peter at Yorke where all ye bonny folke are of ye beste character."
Do you think the Greyfriars would have simply put him in the ground and not said the funeral service over his grave, given that he was buried in a place of honour where the friars would have continued to say their services until the Dissolution?
It was their religious duty to say the appropriate office.
Do you think the Greyfriars would have simply put him in the ground and not said the funeral service over his grave, given that he was buried in a place of honour where the friars would have continued to say their services until the Dissolution?
It was their religious duty to say the appropriate office.
Show me the evidence. I don't want circumstantial guff.
Comments
I think the point is it is a new document - which means others may yet come to light.:) I wouldn't panic - it won't make any difference. But maybe someone somewhere in an archive one day will stumble on something more unequivocal. I'm guessing he has more to say about it tomorrow because it's published tomorrow. Magazines like you to promo. Pretty obvious.
This proposed chantry at York has now reached the status of an urban myth. People are always saying Richard wanted to be buried at York/we know what his wishes are/this was going to be his burial place.
All of this, as has been pointed out countless times on this and other threads across the Internet, is not fact - at best it is an 'inferred assumption' - or in laymen's terms - a guess.
I don't think anyone here is inferring it does, and it is hard to comment til we can see a full transcript and how much hard evidence he had for chantries -> mausoleums. The point is, it goes to show even after all this time, and all the books written about him for the past one hundred years, new primary sources can come to light. That's fascinating for any historian. It won't make a jot of difference to the outcome here but how great would it be, one day, for someone in the archives somewhere, to stumble upon a more explicit will, or direct reference to his actual wishes.
As I said upthread, if all we care about is history and precedent then the history and precedent for kings killed in action is to be buried away from the battle site, maybe hundreds of miles away, in a place that mattered in life. History is of course always written by the victors. Etc etc. But there is a very real sense for someone who isn't a pedantic lawyer but an historian, that it is the last outrage the Tudors have managed to perpetuate, hundreds of years on, where he will be buried in a place where the worst thing possible, happened to him and he had no connection in life - apart from it being the site where he happened to be killed.
I think what has driven people mad over the past months is the insistence by some that the inferred assumption made on the existing information available is FACT when it patently is not. That and the dreadful attacks on Leicester and its people which sometimes verge on the racist and libelous.
They're very active on private pages. Will post more when I have permission to do so.
Those are your opinions.There's enough circumstantial evidence of his inferred wishes to state confidently that York was his choice. And this letter only adds to that. No amount of denial of the evidence on your part will make it stop being true.
He's written a BBC History Magazine article, published tomorrow.
It adds to the weight of circumstantial evidence pointing to his wanting to be buried in York Minster. Most historians agree that he would've wanted to be buried in York, based on their knowledge of his life, and the historical and contemporary evidence. Those who know far more about Richard, than either of us.
His life and connections with York and Yorkshire, are documented fact.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and denying it won't make it go away.
I don't think you can libel a place.;-) As for race, it's never come into my posts - I don't think it's an issue. I spent most of my career working with Asian kids in another Midlands inner city. I think this is everyone's history and the fact Leicester is more diverse than York is an irrelevance. I don't agree with pro-Yorkists who have made statements I too would consider racist. In a way that is a handy distraction from the real argument, so they have done themselves no favours with that, either.
Re. primary sources this is what I do now, quite often, bring to light primary sources no-one else has published, or researched although my period of interest is the late 18thC early 19thC and so I wouldn't pretend to know what sources are extant for the 15thC and what might feasibly still be lurking. As archives increasingly get digitised, it is possible new material may turn up and to me that is so exciting! How likely it is that anything new could turn up from Richard III, I dunno. I have always assumed that the Ricardians (for whom I have no love, never have had) had found everything to be found but then if you think about it, a lot of books have been written by amateurs - I know several published writers whose field is this period of history and, frankly, am not impressed. So it is possible more could come to light.
It won't change a thing in terms of re-interment but it is quite exciting to think something may yet turn up.
It might if a copy of his will has survived somwhere. Tudor tried to destroy all copies of Titulus Regius, but at least one survived. So even though he would've done the same with Richard's will, there may be one found yet.
It still wouldn't change anything in my opinion even if years down the line a copy of his will did turn up stating that he wished to be buried in York. It is highly unlikely that his bones would be dug up again and moved to York (or anywhere else for that matter). His re-interrment in Leicester (whether you agree or not on the location) is based on sound archaeological, religious and legal grounds and that won't change even if his last will and testament is discovered years from now, expressly stating his burial wishes.
I wasn't referring to your posts, Hogzilla, but if you look on the Internet there are some very disturbing remarks about Leicester and its population. There have also been conspiracy theories developed to explain why the JR decision was the way it was. None of it is pretty to read. I agree, it hasn't advanced the pro-York case at all and has had the opposite effect in some cases.
However, it is very wearying to keep reading that sort of stuff and the general public will soon get tired of what to them seems to be a storm in a teacup.
You have a touching faith in historians. Do you agree, then with historian Michael Hicks who thinks Richard was a tyrant, a serial incestor and murderer of the princes? He is a qualified historian, has knowledge of Richard's life, and has access to the same sources as everyone else. So must his opinion be regarded as fact because he is a historian?
Historians are just as much formulators of 'evidence' based on interpretation as ordinary people. Some of them are just as guilty of presenting their opinions/assumptions as fact.
Actually looking at how much he was willing to pay for prayers makes it more likely IMO.
I expect the original Just Giving page set up by Richard III to crowd fund his chantry to turn up any day now.
Ah yes, I know you didn't mean me but the issue has come up on this thread, and that was something I was uncomfortable with. I also don't agree with conspiracy theories - as you say, these things backfire. Once you can be portrayed as 'eccentric', no-one listens to you anymore (Ricardians, above all people, should know that!)
TBH I don't think 'the general public' care either way. They never would have.
This was always a debate largely between people who love history - and people who love Leicester.
Even though on the losing side, I have loved this discussion here and it gives me hope that a lot of people love history passionately.
Nope. Interpreted 'inferences' dressed up as fact once more.
We really should keep a tally of these.
I'm half expecting the fanatic wing of the PA will now do something completely daft like get hold of an old piece of wallpaper, daub it in tea and gravy browning, get a quill and then write on it in 'gothic' script and in appalling 'medieval' English something to this effect:
"I Richard ye thirde ye Kinge of Englande do hearbye and heretofore requeste that my worshipfulle and worldly remains be interred in ye goodly minster churche of St Peter at Yorke where all ye bonny folke are of ye beste character."
Evidence!!
I expect the PA and its supporters are now rallying the RC population to ask the pope to intervene to ensure that Richard has a RC service.
He's already had a Catholic funeral and is not entitled to another one, but that won't stop them trying.
Well I will not be contacting the Pope and I think he'd be happy not to be inundated with such silly requests.
There will probably be an RC priest present to bless the bones anyway.
There's no actual evidence for that.
Do you think the Greyfriars would have simply put him in the ground and not said the funeral service over his grave, given that he was buried in a place of honour where the friars would have continued to say their services until the Dissolution?
It was their religious duty to say the appropriate office.
Show me the evidence. I don't want circumstantial guff.
I thought inference was all the rage
Clearly not or Richard III would've been in York by now, so again - show me the evidence that he received a Catholic burial in 1485.