Is Leicester really a fitting resting place for Richard III?

14849515354237

Comments

  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At least there are none of those 'scenes from his life' with which we were being threatened.

    (The Leicester Mercury has banned me from commenting, the *******.)

    It looks like they lack the ability for scenes, you'd have to have some basic skill to do that. Knocking out a plain box with a couple of brass plaques on and a bit of lettering - probably a week's work, if that. I just realised I have farmer ancestors with fancier tombs than that.:D Truly.

    I spose they're cutting corners.
  • kramstan70kramstan70 Posts: 428
    Forum Member
    At least there are none of those 'scenes from his life' with which we were being threatened.

    (The Leicester Mercury has banned me from commenting, the *******.)
    Not surprised. I've read some of your posts on there. You honestly have absolutely no insight into how your posts come across sometimes!
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I bet there is some civic dignatory whose tomb is ten yards from where that's gonna be, who has a fancier monument. This is going to be cringeworthy.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    kramstan70 wrote: »
    Not surprised. I've read some of your posts on there. You honestly have absolutely no insight into how your posts come across sometimes!

    And you have no idea how sickening it is for me to see your city and its leaders grasping the bones of Richard III and shrieking 'they're ours! Ours, ours, ours!'.
  • DPSDPS Posts: 1,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My worst fears confirmed.
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    That does look like a value brand tissue box. Fine to bury yer hamster....

    It does. Cheap, tacky, and ugly. No, no, no. I pray that English Heritage will feel the same way.
    Masons would craft the casket from the same stone from which York Minster was built.

    Talk about adding insult to injury.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    DPS wrote: »
    My worst fears confirmed.

    It does. Cheap, tacky, and ugly. No, no, no. I pray that English Heritage will feel the same way.

    Talk about adding insult to injury.

    Yes, it's a vile insult. No doubt it was supposed to be conciliatory but **** that! It's a massive insult to everyone who believes that the northern king should be returned to the north.
  • kramstan70kramstan70 Posts: 428
    Forum Member
    And you have no idea how sickening it is for me to see your city and its leaders grasping the bones of Richard III and shrieking 'they're ours! Ours, ours, ours!'.

    No I don't because I have a slightly more measured perspective of this issue than you appear to have! I think you need to take a deep breath and have a lie down now.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
  • DPSDPS Posts: 1,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    (The Leicester Mercury has banned me from commenting, the *******.)

    I want to vote in that poll they mentioned, but I can't find it.
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Knocking out a plain box with a couple of brass plaques on and a bit of lettering - probably a week's work, if that.

    Trying to get it done as quickly as possible, before they lose their 'tourist attraction'. :mad:
    And you have no idea how sickening it is for me to see your city and its leaders grasping the bones of Richard III and shrieking 'they're ours! Ours, ours, ours!'.

    Makes the blood boil. He's a person, not a posession.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some monarchs' tombs. Photos just showing the tombs themselves, not the vaulted rooves over them or special carvings all round, etc.

    Henry VII's tomb.

    Elizabeth I

    King John

    Interesting and balanced article.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    kramstan70 wrote: »
    No I don't because I have a slightly more measured perspective of this issue than you appear to have! I think you need to take a deep breath and have a lie down now.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    You mean I should go and put on 'Strictly Come Dancing' or 'The X Factor' and vegetate in front of the TV like most of the population who don't give a **** about anything except what crap is on the television or what they're stuffing in their mouths???

    There really aren't many things I really care about but the reburial of Richard III happens to be one of them. Tell me, apart from the fact that it says so on a bit of paper, what moral right has the University of Leicester got to be the sole arbitrators of where a medieval king of England is buried??
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    DPS wrote: »
    IMakes the blood boil. He's a person, not a posession.

    I thought their mayor's comment about the remains 'leaving Leicester over my dead body' was particularly grim. And now they want Wolsey's remains to add to their charnel collection (and their coffers).
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Some monarchs' tombs. Photos just showing the tombs themselves, not the vaulted rooves over them or special carvings all round, etc.

    Henry VII's tomb.

    Elizabeth I

    King John

    Interesting and balanced article.

    Yes, compare the astonishing Henry VII chapel at Westminster with what Richard III will get at Leicester. 500+ years later and the ignominy continues.
  • kramstan70kramstan70 Posts: 428
    Forum Member
    You mean I should go and put on 'Strictly Come Dancing' or 'The X Factor' and vegetate in front of the TV like most of the population who don't give a **** about anything except what crap is on the television or what they're stuffing in their mouths???

    There really aren't many things I really care about but the reburial of Richard III happens to be one of them. Tell me, apart from the fact that it says so on a bit of paper, what moral right has the University of Leicester got to be the sole arbitrators of where a medieval king of England is buried??

    Like I said before I have a slightly more measured perspective, something which you appear to lack. It's great that you're passionate about something but seriously you're bordering on hysteria now.:)
  • kramstan70kramstan70 Posts: 428
    Forum Member
    I thought their mayor's comment about the remains 'leaving Leicester over my dead body' was particularly grim. And now they want Wolsey's remains to add to their charnel collection (and their coffers).

    I've heard it on good authority that we're going after Lady Jane Grey after we've dug up Wolsey.:D
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    kramstan70 wrote: »
    I've heard it on good authority that we're going after Lady Jane Grey after we've dug up Wolsey.:D

    I've heard the same, and Mary de Bohun won't be safe either.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, compare the astonishing Henry VII chapel at Westminster with what Richard III will get at Leicester. 500+ years later and the ignominy continues.

    I didn't realise til I went looking just now, but Richard's enemy probably has the Best. Tomb. Ever!

    That little Tescos Value Brand tomb they are proposing for Richard...it's becoming farcical now.
  • DPSDPS Posts: 1,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought their mayor's comment about the remains 'leaving Leicester over my dead body' was particularly grim.

    He said that?! That's a disgusting attitude.
    Hogzilla wrote: »

    That is interesting. It implies that the Queen can have the final say if she chooses to get involved.
    The debate about where we should rebury Richard III is influenced by modern church law and archaeological practice, both of which prefer disturbed human remains to be reinterred as close as possible to the place they were found, and ideally within the same ecclesiastical parish. The Ministry of Justice is likely to adopt this course, though if the Queen decides to intervene at this late stage, the place of burial will be decreed by her.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've heard the same, and Mary de Bohun won't be safe either.

    LOL. They can dig up All The Corpses. Wont get them a tourist trade.:D
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    DPS wrote: »
    He said that?! That's a disgusting attitude.

    Yes, he did:
    Sir Peter Soulsby, Leicester’s mayor, has declared: “Those bones leave Leicester over my dead body.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a7290da-6e2b-11e2-983d-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Kjm8kAm4

    It's strange that the council can fork out £850,000 on an old school to use as a 'museum' (although I've no idea what they'll put in it) and yet I suspect the tomb itself will be bargain basement.
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    kramstan70 wrote: »
    Only another 79,372 signatures to go then! Keep rallying the troops!:D

    It closes 24/09/2013 so will be easily reached - and passed.
  • kramstan70kramstan70 Posts: 428
    Forum Member
    You mean I should go and put on 'Strictly Come Dancing' or 'The X Factor' and vegetate in front of the TV like most of the population who don't give a **** about anything except what crap is on the television or what they're stuffing in their mouths???

    There really aren't many things I really care about but the reburial of Richard III happens to be one of them. Tell me, apart from the fact that it says so on a bit of paper, what moral right has the University of Leicester got to be the sole arbitrators of where a medieval king of England is buried??

    That "bit of paper", at the end of the day, is all that legally matters. Leicester and the East Midlands has lots of connections with Richard III as evidenced by statues, the naming of street names after him and the fact that he was buried on what was at the time consecrated ground by Leicester monks. There is absolutely no evidence that Richard wished to be buried in York and in fact from articles I have read it would have been highly unusual for him to be buried there at that time. There is contemporary evidence to suggest that he was betrayed by his northern allies and deserted by York in his hour of need; so much for being a " son of York" if that's how they treat you. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that towns folk in Leicester defiled his body, equally likely to have been done by Henry's men or possibly done under duress? Who knows. The point is, Richard's remains look like they are staying in Leicester in our cathedral which whilst admittedly does not have the same majestic splendour as York Minster does mean a lot to local people. Btw what's wrong with the X Factor?:)
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It closes 24/09/2013 so will be easily reached - and passed.

    If York shops and cafes and tourist traps publicised it all summer, we'd get thousands each day.:D Maybe we should suggest that to York Press, to push it everywhere in the city over the coming months. Not long to our Viking Fest now, then it's tourists aplenty right through the year. ;)
  • DPSDPS Posts: 1,412
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It closes 24/09/2013 so will be easily reached - and passed.

    It seems to be averaging between 800 and 1000 signatures a day at the moment.
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    If York shops and cafes and tourist traps publicised it all summer, we'd get thousands each day.:D Maybe we should suggest that to York Press, to push it everywhere in the city over the coming months.

    That's a very good idea!

    I'm horrified by that. How anyone can have such a greedy selfish attitude over a person's mortal remains is beyond me. There are no words to describe how upsetting that statement is.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    kramstan70 wrote: »
    That "bit of paper", at the end of the day, is all that legally matters.

    That wasn't the question. The question was "Does the University of Leicester have the sole moral right to decide where an annointed medieval king of England should be interred?" Because that is what the exhumation licence gives them: the right to decide unilaterally. I think that is wrong whatever the legal position might be.

    And can you really deny, based on the historical evidence that we have and based on Richard III's deep links with Yorkshire (which have been cited on this thread endlessly) that Yorkshire wouldn't be preferable to Leicestershire and that he wouldn't have preferred Yorkshire over Leicestershire?

    Professor Michael Hicks is no fan of Richard III and even he said recently that Leicester would've been "the last place" where he would've wanted to be buried. Yes, Leicester has links with Richard, most of which are post-mortem. The living man had little connection to the town in comparison with York or a number of its surrounding villages. Shouldn't that be what matters in determining where he should finally be buried?
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    If York shops and cafes and tourist traps publicised it all summer, we'd get thousands each day.:D Maybe we should suggest that to York Press, to push it everywhere in the city over the coming months. Not long to our Viking Fest now, then it's tourists aplenty right through the year. ;)

    I think that's a great idea. I know York in the summer and it is heaving. I remember walking down Coney Street on a Saturday in August and it was literally wall-to-wall with people. My favourite memory of York though is when I walked around late one night in the winter. It was starting to snow and I walked up through The Shambles. There wasn't a single person around and iit was totally silent, and it was like being back in the Middle Ages. (Oh, and the time I went up to look at the bells being rung in one of the bell chambers of the Minster and we had to wear ear defenders against the noise. Amazing).
Sign In or Register to comment.