"We all know what's right, but we're talking about Leicester here. Decency? They have none. Conscience? Look elsewhere. Heart? No. Innate sense of the vast difference between what's right and what's wrong? Again, you look for qualities they have never possessed, do not possess, and will never possess. Since His Majesty was murdered and paraded through a jeering mob of Leicester people, they have not changed or altered one iota. They disgust me. They disgust every right thinking person. Happily for them, they don't have the intelligence to realise. Too busy following the money and if it's dripping with blood? So much the better. Shame on you all."
Charming!
Hard to disagree with most of those sentiments though.
Is the little church really that lacking in medieval architecture, fittings and atmosphere that it couldn't even handle a medieval tomb? Sorry, but that's pathetic.
I love the tomb at Gloucester cathedral because it is original and speaks of the age in which it was made.
I think a modern imitation (be that at Leicester, York or Westminster) would be a silly thing to do. Aren't you quite definitely opposed to e.g. Victorian imitations of what they thought medieval features and fixtures should look like?
It would just be bogus.
I think a modern design is necessary, on the whole.
You are big on the evidence thing, I believe. Where is the evidence that Leicester people were jeering when Richard was brought back?
I said it was hard to disagree with the sentiments not the details, but given how the body was hastily thrown into a pit by the friars we can probably assume he wasn't exactly treated with respect in Leicester. It seems that history really does repeat itself.
I said it was hard to disagree with the sentiments not the details, but given how the body was hastily thrown into a pit by the friars we can probably assume he wasn't exactly treated with respect in Leicester. It seems that history really does repeat itself.
He isn't going to be flung in a pit though is he (though you will doubtless now riposte that the cathedral is a pit... haha yawn)
He is being reinterred in an ossuary made of English oak, by one of his possible descendants at the central point of the cathedral church, with every dignity.
I said it was hard to disagree with the sentiments not the details, but given how the body was hastily thrown into a pit by the friars we can probably assume he wasn't exactly treated with respect in Leicester. It seems that history really does repeat itself.
The blame for what happened to Richard lies with Henry Tudor - his was the army which treated his body disgracefully, against all the rules of 'chivalry'. His were the people tasked with bringing Richard back to Leicester (a decision made because Richard had ridden out from Leicester as king and it was necessary to show he was dead). His was the decision of how to bring the body back - naked on a horse. His was the decision to expose the body for several days in the heat of summer to prove the death of the king and his was the responsibility for giving the body to be buried by the Grey Friars.
At no point in this were the people of Leicester to blame. They had actually sent men to support him at Bosworth.
I love the tomb at Gloucester cathedral because it is original and speaks of the age in which it was made.
I think a modern imitation (be that at Leicester, York or Westminster) would be a silly thing to do. Aren't you quite definitely opposed to e.g. Victorian imitations of what they thought medieval features and fixtures should look like?
It would just be bogus.
I think a modern design is necessary, on the whole.
Yes. But you're trying to reduce a complex aesthetic down to its most basic form. It's not as easy as that. Many medieval tombs were themselves anachronistic, harking back to an earlier time, and whether something is an 'imitation' or not depends entirely on what is being imitated and how it's done. The great church at Ottery St Mary was deliberately rebuilt in an anachronistic style in the 14th century because the Bishop of Exeter wanted to evoke an earlier period in church history. In Devon's parish churches there are numerous oak rood screens carved almost from scratch by Herbert Reed in the early 20th century. The quality of the craftsmanship is so high that they're almost as spectacular as the 15th originals.
There are dozens of ways in which the Richard III tomb design could've evoked the age he lived in without being a 'modern imitation'. Unfortunately it would've taken someone with far greater ability than the hacks employed to rearrange the 'cathedral's' interior. What experience does vHH, the design firm, have in funerary monuments? They design schools, sports centres, blocks of residential housing...oh, and the tomb of a former medieval king of England. It's a total joke.
The blame for what happened to Richard lies with Henry Tudor - his was the army which treated his body disgracefully, against all the rules of 'chivalry'. His were the people tasked with bringing Richard back to Leicester (a decision made because Richard had ridden out from Leicester as king and it was necessary to show he was dead). His was the decision of how to bring the body back - naked on a horse. His was the decision to expose the body for several days in the heat of summer to prove the death of the king and his was the responsibility for giving the body to be buried by the Grey Friars.
At no point in this were the people of Leicester to blame. They had actually sent men to support him at Bosworth.
And that is the town's only connection with the king during his lifetime. He was unlucky enough to have stayed their very briefly before Bosworth. Big deal. What I find most distasteful of all is the town's current efforts to try and reclaim the king as 'one of their own'. The truth is that he had almost nothing to do with the area at all.
Yes. But you're trying to reduce a complex aesthetic down to its most basic form. It's not as easy as that. Many medieval tombs were themselves anachronistic, harking back to an earlier time, and whether something is an 'imitation' or not depends entirely on what is being imitated and how it's done. The great church at Ottery St Mary was deliberately rebuilt in an anachronistic style in the 14th century because the Bishop of Exeter wanted to evoke an earlier period in church history. In Devon's parish churches there are numerous oak rood screens carved almost from scratch by Herbert Reed in the early 20th century. The quality of the craftsmanship is so high that they're almost as spectacular as the 15th originals.
There are dozens of ways in which the Richard III tomb design could've evoked the age he lived in without being a 'modern imitation'. Unfortunately it would've taken someone with far greater ability than the hacks employed to rearrange the 'cathedral's' interior. What experience does vHH, the design firm, have in funeral monuments? They design schools, sports centres, blocks of residential housing...oh, and the tomb of a former medieval king of England. It's a total joke.
Fair enough re. the first paragraph, and very interesting. There's a lot of knowledge on this thread!
I do actually think the tomb design lacks something and as you say doesn't really reflect the age in which he lived. I guess it's a fine line between doing that, and it becoming cluttered or mawkish.
We shall see how it pans out.
1. I think there are examples of people who are actually buried in Westminster Abbey who specifically said they wanted to go elsewhere, would you believe so ....
If I left a will saying I wanted to be buried in York Minster, would it happen, do you think? Or do dead ex kings' wishes have more weight?
2. Any surviving C15th and earlier church was catholic in Richard's lifetime - including the church which is now Leicester cathedral
3. Evidence?
4. I can't see the catholic church agreeing that the Greyfriars would not have given him proper funeral rites, therefore their stance will be that he has had one funeral and can't have another
If you were a former Monarch of England, then yes, your wishes should carry much more weight. It's wrong to refuse to bury someone according to their wishes, so those who are in the Abbey but wanted to be somewhere else, should by moral rights, be moved to where they wanted to be.
St. Martin's may have been catholic, but it certainly wasn't a cathedral. Richard would not have expected or wanted to be buried in a parish church.
Tudor backdated his reign specifically to give him an excuse to execute Richard's surviving supporters. Anyone trying to recover his body for burial in York, would've been in great danger.
Why would the catholic church need to give permission to give him a funeral? Several priests who have been contacted by the campaign group, have indicated that rites and masses should be given, so clearly there are some who believe that it would be appropriate.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
The design is believed to have been chosen to maximise tourist visits. If this is the case, then building something that most people don't like, is going to have the opposite effect.
And given that the stained glass window will depict (among other things) Richard's corpse slung over a horse, being carried back from Bosworth, 'beautiful' isn't the word I'd use for how it's going to look.
For the record, though, I think that once he became king, any choice of burial would have been in London. Not Yorkshire. Probably not Leicester either, although I wouldn't have been too surprised if he'd chosen somewhere in the Midlands.
His letter, written five months before he died, strongly suggests otherwise.
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
Then it's very much akin to what the Leicester Mercury did, 'drumming up' support for the Leicester petition. Why is it acceptable when Leicester does it, but not if those opposing Leicester do?
One day a child might well be taken to the cathedral and ask her parent
"Why is King Richard here, and not with the Queen in Westminster?"
And hopefully the answer given will be comprehensive and will bring history tangibly present and alive for her as she looks at the tomb at the centre of that building.
Hopefully the child will be told the truth. That Leicester wanted him buried there against his wishes, because they needed more tourists.
Then how do you account for the exhortations on the various pro-York sites for people to vote against the design to show their contempt for Leicester and all contained within it? Some even mentioned having multiple addresses so that they could vote a number of times.
Exactly the same as some who multiple-voted on the Leicester petition last year. Why was that okay, but others doing the same thing isn't?
You are big on the evidence thing, I believe. Where is the evidence that Leicester people were jeering when Richard was brought back?
I asked a question a few pages back:
And can you honestly say that not a single resident of Leicester would have come to gawp at Richard's corpse when it was laid out after Bosworth? That's defilement in itself.
Nobody answered it. I'd be interested to hear your answer.
I love the tomb at Gloucester cathedral because it is original and speaks of the age in which it was made.
I think a modern imitation (be that at Leicester, York or Westminster) would be a silly thing to do. Aren't you quite definitely opposed to e.g. Victorian imitations of what they thought medieval features and fixtures should look like?
It would just be bogus.
I think a modern design is necessary, on the whole.
Why must a modern design be necessary? A modern design would be hugely out of place if he were brought to York or Westminster. A Victorian design would also be inappropriate, as it would have no connection to Richard.
It's perfectly possible to have something in keeping with the building, that also incorporates some medievel design, and elements of Richard's life and status. A good example of this is George V's tomb:
He isn't going to be flung in a pit though is he (though you will doubtless now riposte that the cathedral is a pit... haha yawn)
He is being reinterred in an ossuary made of English oak, by one of his possible descendants at the central point of the cathedral church, with every dignity.
As long as he remains in the city where he was brought to be displayed and buried in disgrace by his enemy, and is far from the city that he wanted for his resting place, he'll not have dignity.
As we don't know what his wishes were with regard to his burial, keeping on stating opinion/inferred assumptions etc as fact does not make it a fact.
The letter is about paying the priests to offer prayers for Richard and his family. It does not talk/discuss/mention Richard's own burial. Chris Skidmore simply suggested it may indicate burial, but the letter doesn't say so - we are back to second guessing Richard's intentions.
The design is believed to have been chosen to maximise tourist visits. If this is the case, then building something that most people don't like, is going to have the opposite effect.
Believed by whom and on what basis?
Hopefully the child will be told the truth. That Leicester wanted him buried there against his wishes, because they needed more tourists.
I prefer the facts. Hopefully the child will be told that Richard III was killed at Bosworth, and afterwards was buried at the friars' church in Leicester.
After over 500 years his body was rediscovered, and church, state and law agreed his remains should be interred in the parish where they'd always lain.
Exactly the same as some who multiple-voted on the Leicester petition last year. Why was that okay, but others doing the same thing isn't?
It wasn't ok imo, but then I've never used these useless and easily fiddled polls as proof of anything... unlike some people.
How many people will want to keep on coming once the novelty has worn off?
Don't know, don't care. I've never really cared either way about the 'tourist' angle you keep banging on about.
Why must a modern design be necessary? A modern design would be hugely out of place if he were brought to York or Westminster. A Victorian design would also be inappropriate, as it would have no connection to Richard.
It's perfectly possible to have something in keeping with the building, that also incorporates some medievel design, and elements of Richard's life and status. A good example of this is George V's tomb:
Entirely a matter of personal taste of course. On the whole I prefer modern memorials to be of a contemporary design, but that is just an opinion.
As long as he remains in the city where he was brought to be displayed and buried in disgrace by his enemy, and is far from the city that he wanted for his resting place, he'll not have dignity.
Oh I think he will . A particularly nice touch was the invitation to Michael Ibsen to make the casket. It's a rather poetic bookend to the whole thing, and in his own words as a long descended nephew of the man himself, Leicester will provide a "distinctive and elegant" resting place for his ancestor.
IWhy must a modern design be necessary? A modern design would be hugely out of place if he were brought to York or Westminster. A Victorian design would also be inappropriate, as it would have no connection to Richard.
It's perfectly possible to have something in keeping with the building, that also incorporates some medievel design, and elements of Richard's life and status. A good example of this is George V's tomb:
If you were a former Monarch of England, then yes, your wishes should carry much more weight. It's wrong to refuse to bury someone according to their wishes, so those who are in the Abbey but wanted to be somewhere else, should by moral rights, be moved to where they wanted to be.
Why would the catholic church need to give permission to give him a funeral? Several priests who have been contacted by the campaign group, have indicated that rites and masses should be given, so clearly there are some who believe that it would be appropriate.
Why must a modern design be necessary?
1 - So does that mean that anyone can say where they want to be buried and it's wrong to not accommodate them?
2. A person can only have one funeral. I don't think that the Catholic church would concur with your suspicion that Richard was not given the funeral rites when he was buried by Friars in 1485 therefore, as he has already had one, he cannot have another.
3. Because the CFCE say so. And they have to approve such things.
Believed by many people on the basis of the Leicester authorities talking about how good for their city it'll be to have Richard buried there, how much money they'll make, how many more tourists they'll now get, how the eyes of the world will be on Leicester, etc. All the things that have been said and done over the last two years, ample evidence of the real reason Leicester wants to bury Richard.
Oh I think he will . A particularly nice touch was the invitation to Michael Ibsen to make the casket. It's a rather poetic bookend to the whole thing, and in his own words as a long descended nephew of the man himself, Leicester will provide a "distinctive and elegant" resting place for his ancestor.
So stick that in your pipe.
That's a matter of opinion. And there's no need for rudeness.
Still, great idea for a George V tomb - instead of Bugger Bognor you could substitute Bugger Bosworth as his motto.
Yes, I know when it was made. The point I was making was that an elegant tomb with some medieval influence, doesn't have to be out of place in modern design.
2. A person can only have one funeral. I don't think that the Catholic church would concur with your suspicion that Richard was not given the funeral rites when he was buried by Friars in 1485 therefore, as he has already had one, he cannot have another.
According to whom? Is there a law that says this? Or is it more just by religious tradition?
As there's no evidence that he did have a proper funeral, a case can be made for one. Whether or not the catholic church would accept that, depends on whether or not the matter gets that far. Nobody can know exactly what they'd decide, until the issue is considered, and a decision made.
3. Because the CFCE say so. And they have to approve such things.
The CFCE said that Richard's tomb absolutely had to be a modern design? Or did they just approve a modern design, because all of the ones submitted to them were modern?
Believed by many people on the basis of the Leicester authorities talking about how good for their city it'll be to have Richard buried there, how much money they'll make, how many more tourists they'll now get, how the eyes of the world will be on Leicester, etc. All the things that have been said and done over the last two years, ample evidence of the real reason Leicester wants to bury Richard.
What has that to do with the tomb design?
You said specifically that the tomb design had been chosen to maximize visitor numbers.
What about the tomb design makes this the case?
Like the many Leicester supporters who claimed that their petition had 'won', because they'd 'beaten' the York one, you mean?
Yes them too.
These polls are a joke.
That's a matter of opinion. And there's no need for rudeness.
Haven't you, in the past, set great store by the opinions of his descendants?
Sorry if you haven't, I just thought you had.
According to whom? Is there a law that says this? Or is it more just by religious tradition?
As there's no evidence that he did have a proper funeral, a case can be made for one. Whether or not the catholic church would accept that, depends on whether or not the matter gets that far. Nobody can know exactly what they'd decide, until the issue is considered, and a decision made.
The CFCE said that Richard's tomb absolutely had to be a modern design? Or did they just approve a modern design, because all of the ones submitted to them were modern?
I suggest you ask the Church and the CFCE - I can't be bothered discussing anything with you
To sum up, it's a big tourism opportunity being missed and the modern tomb means he loses an opportunity to dress up in his medieval togs and camp about a bit.
What has that to do with the tomb design?
You said specifically that the tomb design had been chosen to maximize visitor numbers.
What about the tomb design makes this the case?
It was designed to appeal to the cathedral visitors, i.e., the tourists, so it had to fit with their revamp of the cathedral itself, to maximise visitor numbers.
So what the locals, or Ricardians think doesn't matter to Leicester Cathedral, they're only interested in how much money they can potentially make. So never mind Richard's life, connections, status, whether anybody actually likes the design, etc.
Haven't you, in the past, set great store by the opinions of his descendants?
Sorry if you haven't, I just thought you had.
One descendant, who disagrees with more than forty others. Why should one person's opinion override so many others'?
You seem to be approving of Michael Ibsen, but are scathing of those in the PA. Is this because Ibsen supports a Leicester reburial, and the other 40+ oppose it?
I suggest you ask the Church and the CFCE - I can't be bothered discussing anything with you
I find it interesting that every time I ask a question that someone can't answer, they're either very rude in their response, or suddenly can't be bothered talking about the subject.
IOne descendant, who disagrees with more than forty others. Why should one person's opinion override so many others'?
You seem to be approving of Michael Ibsen, but are scathing of those in the PA. Is this because Ibsen supports a Leicester reburial, and the other 40+ oppose it?
He's the only 100% DNA proven and named collateral descendent of Richard III living today. No idea who the 40 nutters of "The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd" are, perhaps there will be a shareholders meeting where they will identify themselves and tell us where the money went?
To sum up, it's a big tourism opportunity being missed and the modern tomb means he loses an opportunity to dress up in his medieval togs and camp about a bit.
Is he a living historian/re-enactor? Cool.
That's an interesting interview and he seems to be making a lot of good points. Thanks for linking.:)
The thing re a 15thC catholic re-burial service being found is fascinating - I didn't know that. The only point he made I'd disagree with is when he says the brutalism of the proposed tomb is a bit 50s/60s therefore will not tell people in the future anything about our culture... I think it perfectly reflects the mindset of those in charge now, in Leicester (ignorant of history and brutalist) and therefore is appropriate.
As we don't know what his wishes were with regard to his burial, keeping on stating opinion/inferred assumptions etc as fact does not make it a fact.
The letter is about paying the priests to offer prayers for Richard and his family. It does not talk/discuss/mention Richard's own burial. Chris Skidmore simply suggested it may indicate burial, but the letter doesn't say so - we are back to second guessing Richard's intentions.
You might like to know that much of what we 'know' about the Middle Ages is based on assumption and inference. It's how much history is written. It's very rare that you can say 1 + 1 = 2 with absolute surety when the events happened hundreds of years ago. It's naive to think otherwise. As I said a few pages back, there is no evidence that Richard received a Catholic burial at the friary. Yes, of course he almost certainly did. But we can also say, based on the same lack of 'evidence', that he would've preferred a burial at York or Westminster.
Comments
Hard to disagree with most of those sentiments though.
You are big on the evidence thing, I believe. Where is the evidence that Leicester people were jeering when Richard was brought back?
I love the tomb at Gloucester cathedral because it is original and speaks of the age in which it was made.
I think a modern imitation (be that at Leicester, York or Westminster) would be a silly thing to do. Aren't you quite definitely opposed to e.g. Victorian imitations of what they thought medieval features and fixtures should look like?
It would just be bogus.
I think a modern design is necessary, on the whole.
I said it was hard to disagree with the sentiments not the details, but given how the body was hastily thrown into a pit by the friars we can probably assume he wasn't exactly treated with respect in Leicester. It seems that history really does repeat itself.
He isn't going to be flung in a pit though is he (though you will doubtless now riposte that the cathedral is a pit... haha yawn)
He is being reinterred in an ossuary made of English oak, by one of his possible descendants at the central point of the cathedral church, with every dignity.
The blame for what happened to Richard lies with Henry Tudor - his was the army which treated his body disgracefully, against all the rules of 'chivalry'. His were the people tasked with bringing Richard back to Leicester (a decision made because Richard had ridden out from Leicester as king and it was necessary to show he was dead). His was the decision of how to bring the body back - naked on a horse. His was the decision to expose the body for several days in the heat of summer to prove the death of the king and his was the responsibility for giving the body to be buried by the Grey Friars.
At no point in this were the people of Leicester to blame. They had actually sent men to support him at Bosworth.
The english are good at jeering. They would have jeered. Schadenfreude in the 15th century, even thought the english hadnt yet invented the word.
Btw, i hope the royal family will be in attendance. They would be conspicious (sic) by their absence. And that would put a stop to the jeering.
Yes. But you're trying to reduce a complex aesthetic down to its most basic form. It's not as easy as that. Many medieval tombs were themselves anachronistic, harking back to an earlier time, and whether something is an 'imitation' or not depends entirely on what is being imitated and how it's done. The great church at Ottery St Mary was deliberately rebuilt in an anachronistic style in the 14th century because the Bishop of Exeter wanted to evoke an earlier period in church history. In Devon's parish churches there are numerous oak rood screens carved almost from scratch by Herbert Reed in the early 20th century. The quality of the craftsmanship is so high that they're almost as spectacular as the 15th originals.
There are dozens of ways in which the Richard III tomb design could've evoked the age he lived in without being a 'modern imitation'. Unfortunately it would've taken someone with far greater ability than the hacks employed to rearrange the 'cathedral's' interior. What experience does vHH, the design firm, have in funerary monuments? They design schools, sports centres, blocks of residential housing...oh, and the tomb of a former medieval king of England. It's a total joke.
And that is the town's only connection with the king during his lifetime. He was unlucky enough to have stayed their very briefly before Bosworth. Big deal. What I find most distasteful of all is the town's current efforts to try and reclaim the king as 'one of their own'. The truth is that he had almost nothing to do with the area at all.
Fair enough re. the first paragraph, and very interesting. There's a lot of knowledge on this thread!
I do actually think the tomb design lacks something and as you say doesn't really reflect the age in which he lived. I guess it's a fine line between doing that, and it becoming cluttered or mawkish.
We shall see how it pans out.
Opinion not evidence......
If you were a former Monarch of England, then yes, your wishes should carry much more weight. It's wrong to refuse to bury someone according to their wishes, so those who are in the Abbey but wanted to be somewhere else, should by moral rights, be moved to where they wanted to be.
St. Martin's may have been catholic, but it certainly wasn't a cathedral. Richard would not have expected or wanted to be buried in a parish church.
Tudor backdated his reign specifically to give him an excuse to execute Richard's surviving supporters. Anyone trying to recover his body for burial in York, would've been in great danger.
Why would the catholic church need to give permission to give him a funeral? Several priests who have been contacted by the campaign group, have indicated that rites and masses should be given, so clearly there are some who believe that it would be appropriate.
The design is believed to have been chosen to maximise tourist visits. If this is the case, then building something that most people don't like, is going to have the opposite effect.
And given that the stained glass window will depict (among other things) Richard's corpse slung over a horse, being carried back from Bosworth, 'beautiful' isn't the word I'd use for how it's going to look.
His letter, written five months before he died, strongly suggests otherwise.
Then it's very much akin to what the Leicester Mercury did, 'drumming up' support for the Leicester petition. Why is it acceptable when Leicester does it, but not if those opposing Leicester do?
Hopefully the child will be told the truth. That Leicester wanted him buried there against his wishes, because they needed more tourists.
Exactly the same as some who multiple-voted on the Leicester petition last year. Why was that okay, but others doing the same thing isn't?
How many people will want to keep on coming once the novelty has worn off?
I asked a question a few pages back:
Nobody answered it. I'd be interested to hear your answer.
Why must a modern design be necessary? A modern design would be hugely out of place if he were brought to York or Westminster. A Victorian design would also be inappropriate, as it would have no connection to Richard.
It's perfectly possible to have something in keeping with the building, that also incorporates some medievel design, and elements of Richard's life and status. A good example of this is George V's tomb:
http://images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/099/926/841_001.jpg
As long as he remains in the city where he was brought to be displayed and buried in disgrace by his enemy, and is far from the city that he wanted for his resting place, he'll not have dignity.
The letter is about paying the priests to offer prayers for Richard and his family. It does not talk/discuss/mention Richard's own burial. Chris Skidmore simply suggested it may indicate burial, but the letter doesn't say so - we are back to second guessing Richard's intentions.
After over 500 years his body was rediscovered, and church, state and law agreed his remains should be interred in the parish where they'd always lain.
It wasn't ok imo, but then I've never used these useless and easily fiddled polls as proof of anything... unlike some people.
Don't know, don't care. I've never really cared either way about the 'tourist' angle you keep banging on about. Entirely a matter of personal taste of course. On the whole I prefer modern memorials to be of a contemporary design, but that is just an opinion.
Oh I think he will
So stick that in your pipe.
You do know that MCMXXXVI is 1936 don't you?
Still, great idea for a George V tomb - instead of Bugger Bognor you could substitute Bugger Bosworth as his motto.
1 - So does that mean that anyone can say where they want to be buried and it's wrong to not accommodate them?
2. A person can only have one funeral. I don't think that the Catholic church would concur with your suspicion that Richard was not given the funeral rites when he was buried by Friars in 1485 therefore, as he has already had one, he cannot have another.
3. Because the CFCE say so. And they have to approve such things.
Believed by many people on the basis of the Leicester authorities talking about how good for their city it'll be to have Richard buried there, how much money they'll make, how many more tourists they'll now get, how the eyes of the world will be on Leicester, etc. All the things that have been said and done over the last two years, ample evidence of the real reason Leicester wants to bury Richard.
Like the many Leicester supporters who claimed that their petition had 'won', because they'd 'beaten' the York one, you mean?
That's a matter of opinion. And there's no need for rudeness.
Yes, I know when it was made. The point I was making was that an elegant tomb with some medieval influence, doesn't have to be out of place in modern design.
Morally, yes.
According to whom? Is there a law that says this? Or is it more just by religious tradition?
As there's no evidence that he did have a proper funeral, a case can be made for one. Whether or not the catholic church would accept that, depends on whether or not the matter gets that far. Nobody can know exactly what they'd decide, until the issue is considered, and a decision made.
The CFCE said that Richard's tomb absolutely had to be a modern design? Or did they just approve a modern design, because all of the ones submitted to them were modern?
You said specifically that the tomb design had been chosen to maximize visitor numbers.
What about the tomb design makes this the case?
Yes them too.
These polls are a joke.
Haven't you, in the past, set great store by the opinions of his descendants?
Sorry if you haven't, I just thought you had.
I suggest you ask the Church and the CFCE - I can't be bothered discussing anything with you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wku3ZsLWM4
To sum up, it's a big tourism opportunity being missed and the modern tomb means he loses an opportunity to dress up in his medieval togs and camp about a bit.
It was designed to appeal to the cathedral visitors, i.e., the tourists, so it had to fit with their revamp of the cathedral itself, to maximise visitor numbers.
So what the locals, or Ricardians think doesn't matter to Leicester Cathedral, they're only interested in how much money they can potentially make. So never mind Richard's life, connections, status, whether anybody actually likes the design, etc.
One descendant, who disagrees with more than forty others. Why should one person's opinion override so many others'?
You seem to be approving of Michael Ibsen, but are scathing of those in the PA. Is this because Ibsen supports a Leicester reburial, and the other 40+ oppose it?
I find it interesting that every time I ask a question that someone can't answer, they're either very rude in their response, or suddenly can't be bothered talking about the subject.
He's the only 100% DNA proven and named collateral descendent of Richard III living today. No idea who the 40 nutters of "The Plantagenet Alliance Ltd" are, perhaps there will be a shareholders meeting where they will identify themselves and tell us where the money went?
Is he a living historian/re-enactor? Cool.
That's an interesting interview and he seems to be making a lot of good points. Thanks for linking.:)
The thing re a 15thC catholic re-burial service being found is fascinating - I didn't know that. The only point he made I'd disagree with is when he says the brutalism of the proposed tomb is a bit 50s/60s therefore will not tell people in the future anything about our culture... I think it perfectly reflects the mindset of those in charge now, in Leicester (ignorant of history and brutalist) and therefore is appropriate.
You might like to know that much of what we 'know' about the Middle Ages is based on assumption and inference. It's how much history is written. It's very rare that you can say 1 + 1 = 2 with absolute surety when the events happened hundreds of years ago. It's naive to think otherwise. As I said a few pages back, there is no evidence that Richard received a Catholic burial at the friary. Yes, of course he almost certainly did. But we can also say, based on the same lack of 'evidence', that he would've preferred a burial at York or Westminster.