Bullshit. All my friends and family live in Yorkshire. The only - only - one person who I know out of them who thought Richard was "innocent" was my dad - and that is because he was a staunch anti-Royalist anyway and liked to always side with the people who did "the wrong thing". So Richard in my dad's eyes was a goodie - purely because he was actually a complete shit who defied the King's (Edward's) wishes and who turned everything towards his own means as soon as Edward IV died.
Every other (Yorkshire) person without exception agrees that the guy was a complete ******. They may not all think he was responsible for the murder of the princes - but they all without exception agree that he was an utter bastard who murdered anybody who disagreed in the slightest with him - or sometimes murdered people just on a whim (Hastings). Don't make out I'm in the minority by being a Yorkshire person who (shock! horror!) doesn't love that crippled little c**t - because I'm not. I feel similar towards Richard III as I do towards Peter Sutcliffe - another bastard who this time did come from Yorkshire. Death can't come soon enough for that t**t either.
You might like to claim that Richard III was loved in Yorkshire at the time that he was illegally crowned King, and that he has been loved in Yorkshire ever since, but its a crock of lies. The guy was a corrupt, evil, murdering bastard. Trying to pretend that the Tudors and Shakespeare blackened his holy image just makes you look stupid - he blackened his own image while he was still alive by decapitating his own right-hand man in front of Parliament for no reason whatsoever, for murdering his nephew's two guardians who had been given the task of returning Edward V to London safely by their mother, and for imprisoning not only the heir to the throne, but also the heirs younger brother, before he started calling them bastards to ensure that Parliament would side with him rather than rally round the true heir(s) to the throne. To actually kill them after he had denied them of their father's crown was just pure spitefulness.
And don't come back with the bollocks about there being no proof that Richard III had the two princes killed. The rumours about the boys being murdered was being said in England in 1483 while they were still supposed to be under Richard's lock and key. If he hadn't already had them killed by then, all he would have had to do is present the two boys to Parliament, to their mother and family, to London, and the rumours would have gone away at that point. But no, he couldn't do that, because they were already dead. He didn't kill them himself - no - but Tyrell did under Richard's orders.
Yes Edward executed George, Duke of Clarence. After Clarence had twice committed treason by defecting from York's side to Lancaster's, by Clarence declaring his brother Edward a bastard (and his mother a ****) who was not the true son of the Duke of York therefore should not be King, by marrying Warwick's daughter (who also jumped from Edward's side to Henry VI's). Clarence only changed sides because Henry VI promised Clarence that he would be named as next in line to the throne once he died, jumping over Edward and his sons. Once Clarence found out that Henry VI and Warwick had lied, he crawled back to Edward - only to commit treason again after Warwick's death and Henry VI's murder.
But the difference is - Clarence was guilty of treason several times, Edward forgave him every time but the last one and welcomed him back with open arms. But Clarence was stupid and ambitious and just kept coming back with more and more stupid plots to try and take the Crown from under Edward's nose. He wasn't murdered - he was found guilty of treason (not before time) and therefore had to be executed. Being executed for crimes against one's own King, country and brother is not the same as being murdered.
...unless they were his own nephews. Oh no, that's right, they weren't executed. Just murdered. There's the difference. He didn't execute women and children, just killed them then pretended he hadn't....
No he hadn't. He had saved Clarence's life far more times than Clarence deserved, only for Clarence to try and steal the crown from him again, and in the end had him executed after a trial found him undeniably guilty. Richard may have publicly shed tears at Clarence's death, but given that Clarence and Richard had fallen out big time over Warwick's inheritance once they each married a Warwick daughter (Edward stepped in here to ensure that both Richard and Clarence were entitled to shares of Warwick's estates), and once Clarence was executed and Clarence's son also barred from becoming King, suddenly Richard became next in line to the throne once Edward and Edward's two sons were out of the way. Th execution of George, Duke of Clarence, played right into your little heroes hands. Don't pretend otherwise.
By stealing the throne from his nephew - even though his nephew had been named by the King as his successor? Yes, I suppose, in one way your twisted logic is true. The country should have been more stable under an adult King rather than a King who was only twelve years old, and the Lancastrians would perhaps have been more likely to challenge the authority of a twelve year old King than a thirty year old King. But, as they managed to get rid of the despot usurper only two years after he had crowned himself King, he didn't bring that much peace and stability to the country did he? Perhaps if he hadn't murdered everyone around him he might have been a bit better at keeping the country stable and at peace, eh?
Sorry - doesn't really matter what you write after this. You're obvioulsy living in some fantasy dreamland. The sentence you have written above is akin to saying Osama Bin Laden didn't set out to kill thousands of Americans on September 11th, he just wanted some of his soldiers to have a nice ride in some aeroplanes and have a look at how beautiful the landmarks of Washington and New York really were. He had no intention of them taking over the planes and flying them on a suicide mission into the twin towers and the Pentagon, he just wanted his men to fly loop-the-loops to illustrate how much he loved and admired George W Bush and his friends in Israel.
He set out to claim the throne from the moment he heard that Edward had died. Every single action undertaken by Gloucester from the minute Edward died until his coronation was undertaken with the sole intention of becoming King. His race to meet Grey and Rivers, Edward V's guardians (and uncle and brother) followed by having them executed without trial purely so that he could have Edward V under his control, his execution of Hastings (again without trial) because Hastings disagreed with his capture of Edward V, his rush to get Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid so that Edward V (and his brother Richard) would no longer be allowed to become King. These weren't the actions of somebody who intended to act as Lord Protector to an underage King until the King came of age. These were the actions of a madman who would do anything to gain the ultimate power for himself - but they of course came at a cost. The hatred of the entire country. Even his own ministers were scared to death of him after they saw what he did. Killing his own supposed best friend, simply because the best friend had advised him that he had done wrong in murdering the real King's brother and uncle.
Well, sending them back to their mother with a big bag of sweets once he had cheated them out of their inheritance might have been a better way of protecting their lives than having them murdered in the Tower and burying their bodies under an unused stairwell, mightn't it?
Already explained. While Edward IV was king there was no way Richard could become King - so he kept his head down, his nose clean, and just did whatever Edward told him to do. Once Edward was dead, the doorway was open to him, as long as he removed everyone who stood in his way. Which he did.
No, there isn't. But it would have been so simple for him to show the world that he didn't kill his nephews - by either letting them return to their family, or even if he was intent on still keeping them prisoner, at least letting the world see that they were still alive. But he didn't do this. Why not? If I had been asked by (say) my brother to look after his cat, and nobody had seen this cat for months, and people started saying that I had killed the cat, do you know what I would do to prove that the cat was still alive? I'd let people see the cat. That's it. It's that simple. Look everyone, the cat isn't dead because - here he is. Breathing. Eating. Sleeping. Licking his arse. Whatever cats do.
Now why didn't Richard do that once people started saying he had killed the boys? Answer - because he had killed them. The only reason to not show the boys alive and well when the whole country demanded it is if they weren't alive and well. There ain't no other explanation for his behaviour. Unless he really had gone round the bend completely by then and couldn't work out that to stop the country from telling lies about him he just shows them the truth.
ALERT! ALERT! Lady Margaret Beaufort is in the house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sections of Leicester's recently opened Cathedral Gardens have been fenced off to the public again "for safety and insurance reasons" after it was officially opened at the weekend.
The new £2.5 million public gardens were unveiled by city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby and Bishop of Leicester Rt Rev Tim Stevens on Saturday with the occasion marked by a weekend of activities.
However visitors hoping to have a look round the new public space on Monday afternoon found the fences back up and the workmen back on site.
It's quite usual to have official openings when work isn't fully completed and then to continue the work.
Similarly, it's quite usual to cordon discreet areas off when there is likely to be machinery moving about, so as not to conflict with pedestrians. No big deal. Despite your attempt to get some mileage out of it :cool:
It's quite usual to have official openings when work isn't fully completed and then to continue the work.
Similarly, it's quite usual to cordon discreet areas off when there is likely to be machinery moving about, so as not to conflict with pedestrians. No big deal. Despite your attempt to get some mileage out of it :cool:
This visitor thought it was bland, underwhelming and a total waste of money:
Of course, the organisers and a member of the clergy were all delighted with the results, but would they really say anything to the contrary?
The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants.
They could have planned it better or planted instant colour.
Apparently they were aiming for palette of peace with lilacs and blues, but it resembled more like a barrage of blandness.
Jeez the woman who wrote that article was as daft as a brush. If she thinks a garden is going to look amazing in a few weeks (while bits of it are still being constructed) then she clearly has no idea how horticulture works.
The cathedral is probably going down the herbaceous perennial route, with shrubbery, grasses etc, all of which take years to become established.
"The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants"
No shit Sherlock!!
The alternative would be mass planting of quick annuals like (the ubiquitous) petunia, impatiens and geraniums. All of which look tacky and 'pub beer garden', in my view.
Jeez the woman who wrote that article was as daft as a brush. If she thinks a garden is going to look amazing in a few weeks (while bits of it are still being constructed) then she clearly has no idea how horticulture works.
The cathedral is probably going down the herbaceous perennial route, with shrubbery, grasses etc, all of which take years to become established.
"The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants"
No shit Sherlock!!
The alternative would be mass planting of quick annuals like (the ubiquitous) petunia, impatiens and geraniums. All of which look tacky and 'pub beer garden', in my view.
It's a shame if they have grubbed up memorials - I wonder if that woman is even right, in saying that? The MIs will have been recorded years ago, if it's the case, although hopefully the stones have been moved elsewhere in the churchyard and can still be seen...
Must be hard to know how to pitch it in terms of garden design, though as being central in a city it will inevitably have to lean more towards parks n gardens - various shrubs, and cultivars, rather than have wild areas, as rural churchyards increasingly have.
Often, memorials that were once upright were laid down flat to the ground in the 20thC and I have seen some churches where they deliberately let the moss grow over them as it actually preserves the inscriptions and prevents weathering. So I'm all about the benign neglect and wildlife. It is hard to do that in this kind of space, though.
Probably wise not to have a grand opening if the place wasn't yet complete (think how fast they make those spaces with established looking plants at Chelsea), but it's no big deal. As a genealogist, the bit that concerns me is if they really have moved headstones - it happened in the past in churchyards where they needed to make space for the next load of burials, but if there have been no burials there for decades and decades, there'd be no need to ship out the memorials.
Have to agree with you there, though, it would always be hard to know how to re-design a space like that and that woman's urge for "instant colour" probably misses the point of such a space.
Bullshit. All my friends and family live in Yorkshire. The only - only - one person who I know out of them who thought Richard was "innocent" was my dad - and that is because he was a staunch anti-Royalist anyway and liked to always side with the people who did "the wrong thing". So Richard in my dad's eyes was a goodie - purely because he was actually a complete shit who defied the King's (Edward's) wishes and who turned everything towards his own means as soon as Edward IV died.
If your family chooses to believe the rumours and propaganda, then that's up to them. But there isn't proof that Richard was evil, quite the opposite. All the contemporary evidence praises him for being a good and fair King, and most accounts show that he was a decent man. Perhaps your family ought to read them to get a more balanced view.
Every other (Yorkshire) person without exception agrees that the guy was a complete ******. They may not all think he was responsible for the murder of the princes - but they all without exception agree that he was an utter bastard who murdered anybody who disagreed in the slightest with him - or sometimes murdered people just on a whim (Hastings). Don't make out I'm in the minority by being a Yorkshire person who (shock! horror!) doesn't love that crippled little c**t - because I'm not. I feel similar towards Richard III as I do towards Peter Sutcliffe - another bastard who this time did come from Yorkshire. Death can't come soon enough for that t**t either.
Your family certainly seems to be in the minority, the campaign group has received thousands of letters, e-mails and comments from people from Yorkshire, all expressing support for Richard, and praising him for the beneficial law changes he made, and the good he did in his life, and not just during his reign. There's been a great outpouring of affection from the county, and beyond. It's only you and your family who seems to have a venomous hatred of him.
You might like to claim that Richard III was loved in Yorkshire at the time that he was illegally crowned King, and that he has been loved in Yorkshire ever since, but its a crock of lies. The guy was a corrupt, evil, murdering bastard. Trying to pretend that the Tudors and Shakespeare blackened his holy image just makes you look stupid - he blackened his own image while he was still alive by decapitating his own right-hand man in front of Parliament for no reason whatsoever, for murdering his nephew's two guardians who had been given the task of returning Edward V to London safely by their mother, and for imprisoning not only the heir to the throne, but also the heirs younger brother, before he started calling them bastards to ensure that Parliament would side with him rather than rally round the true heir(s) to the throne. To actually kill them after he had denied them of their father's crown was just pure spitefulness.
You may consider that he was crowned illegally, but parliament disagreed, and he was anointed just as any other monarch. Like it or not, Richard was legally King.
It was the Woodvilles who were returning Edward V to London, in order to make a grab for the throne. They thought that if they could crown him quickly, they could control him and seize power for themselves. Documented history again. Richard wasn't the one who found them to be illegitimate, he had to be persuaded of this.
Learning history from Shakespeare is a little like learning about the war from Hollywood films, you're not going to get any accuracy, because it's mostly embellished or fabricated for the purposes of entertainment. Far more interesting to present Richard as a monster, than to tell the truth. And Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor, so he was hardly likely to tell the truth about Henry Tudor's enemy. Doing so could've cost him his head.
And don't come back with the bollocks about there being no proof that Richard III had the two princes killed. The rumours about the boys being murdered was being said in England in 1483 while they were still supposed to be under Richard's lock and key. If he hadn't already had them killed by then, all he would have had to do is present the two boys to Parliament, to their mother and family, to London, and the rumours would have gone away at that point. But no, he couldn't do that, because they were already dead. He didn't kill them himself - no - but Tyrell did under Richard's orders.
Rumours are not evidence, nor do they provide proof. There were lots of rumours about the disappearance of the princes, murder was among them, and the finger was pointed at a number of suspects. Several people had the motive to kill the princes, and Richard was one of the few whose possible motive was the weakest. In fact he had more to lose than gain by such a thing. Henry Tudor's mother Margaret Beaufort, had access to the Tower, and she, Bishop Morton, Elizabeth Woodville, and William Stanley, all had access to the princes, and all had motives. There were rumours about them being possible murderers as well, and also rumours about the princes being in hiding, or hidden away in another country.
Tyrrell was known to have been mentally ill, it's now believed that he was schizophrenic. He confessed under torture by Tudor, so it was unlikely to have been a genuine confession. So his confession is not credible, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Richard loved his family, and was protective of all of them - he swore to his brother to protect his nephews. The Tower was a secure and luxurious palace at that time, and what better place to protect two children, than in the safest building that he owned? The children were seen playing in the courtyard gardens, long after they were thought to have disappeared. So it's not even known if they were murdered at all, or who was responsible if they were.
Yes Edward executed George, Duke of Clarence. After Clarence had twice committed treason by defecting from York's side to Lancaster's, by Clarence declaring his brother Edward a bastard (and his mother a ****) who was not the true son of the Duke of York therefore should not be King, by marrying Warwick's daughter (who also jumped from Edward's side to Henry VI's). Clarence only changed sides because Henry VI promised Clarence that he would be named as next in line to the throne once he died, jumping over Edward and his sons. Once Clarence found out that Henry VI and Warwick had lied, he crawled back to Edward - only to commit treason again after Warwick's death and Henry VI's murder.
But the difference is - Clarence was guilty of treason several times, Edward forgave him every time but the last one and welcomed him back with open arms. But Clarence was stupid and ambitious and just kept coming back with more and more stupid plots to try and take the Crown from under Edward's nose. He wasn't murdered - he was found guilty of treason (not before time) and therefore had to be executed. Being executed for crimes against one's own King, country and brother is not the same as being murdered.
Richard continued to plead for Clarence's life, even then. He tried everything he could to persuade Edward not to execute him, but in vain. Clarence may have been a traitor, or he may have been misguided and foolish. But he was right about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville not being legal, as Edward was betrothed to (and may have actually been married to) Eleanor Butler at the time, and he also had a number of mistresses. That combined with the rumours that Edward himself wasn't legitimate, could easily explain why Clarence acted the way he did.
His other mistake was in believing Henry VI, when it was known that Henry was mad, and unfit to rule himself. So Clarence's behaviour was more misguided than treasonous, and Richard knew that. Which is why he appealed for leniency on his brother's behalf. But Edward was quite unforgiving and brutal, and refused. There was no reason why Edward could not have simply imprisoned his brother, or sent him away. Execution wasn't necessary, which is why I classed it as murder.
...unless they were his own nephews. Oh no, that's right, they weren't executed. Just murdered. There's the difference. He didn't execute women and children, just killed them then pretended he hadn't....
Unless you can provide evidence that Richard murdered his nephews, then he's innocent until proven guilty, whether you agree with that or not.
No he hadn't. He had saved Clarence's life far more times than Clarence deserved, only for Clarence to try and steal the crown from him again, and in the end had him executed after a trial found him undeniably guilty. Richard may have publicly shed tears at Clarence's death, but given that Clarence and Richard had fallen out big time over Warwick's inheritance once they each married a Warwick daughter (Edward stepped in here to ensure that both Richard and Clarence were entitled to shares of Warwick's estates), and once Clarence was executed and Clarence's son also barred from becoming King, suddenly Richard became next in line to the throne once Edward and Edward's two sons were out of the way. Th execution of George, Duke of Clarence, played right into your little heroes hands. Don't pretend otherwise.
Why couldn't Richard have shed tears, simply because he loved his brother? If he didn't, and only wanted power and to get closer to the throne, then his trying to save his Clarence's life doesn't make sense. As I said, Edward did have other options, imprisonment, exile, etc, but chose to go for execution. But that doesn't make Richard an opportunist, if he was, then he'd have stayed out of the situation, and let it happen sooner.
There's too much evidence about Richard's just character to fit the person you're describing. The articles I posted above tells you more about his personality and behaviour, if you'd like to read them?
By stealing the throne from his nephew - even though his nephew had been named by the King as his successor? Yes, I suppose, in one way your twisted logic is true. The country should have been more stable under an adult King rather than a King who was only twelve years old, and the Lancastrians would perhaps have been more likely to challenge the authority of a twelve year old King than a thirty year old King. But, as they managed to get rid of the despot usurper only two years after he had crowned himself King, he didn't bring that much peace and stability to the country did he? Perhaps if he hadn't murdered everyone around him he might have been a bit better at keeping the country stable and at peace, eh?
It's your opinion that Richard seized the crown for himself, contemporary sources show that he had to be persuaded to accept it, and was so because he was convinced of his brother's illegitimacy, his illegal marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and because it would provide grater protection to the princes, if they weren't the target for potential regicide. Richard took them from the throne to try to protect them, and make himself the target. You have no evidence otherwise.
He set out to claim the throne from the moment he heard that Edward had died. Every single action undertaken by Gloucester from the minute Edward died until his coronation was undertaken with the sole intention of becoming King. His race to meet Grey and Rivers, Edward V's guardians (and uncle and brother) followed by having them executed without trial purely so that he could have Edward V under his control, his execution of Hastings (again without trial) because Hastings disagreed with his capture of Edward V, his rush to get Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid so that Edward V (and his brother Richard) would no longer be allowed to become King. These weren't the actions of somebody who intended to act as Lord Protector to an underage King until the King came of age. These were the actions of a madman who would do anything to gain the ultimate power for himself - but they of course came at a cost. The hatred of the entire country. Even his own ministers were scared to death of him after they saw what he did. Killing his own supposed best friend, simply because the best friend had advised him that he had done wrong in murdering the real King's brother and uncle.
Again, contemporary historical sources disagree. Nobody knows exactly what Richard was thinking and feeling, we can only speculate on why he reacted the way he did. But the evidence points to his believing his nephews illegitimacy, and his character points to his trying to protect them, particularly from the Woodvilles, who were known to have been power-hungry. The family's ambitions were part of the reason for the continuing wars.
Removing those who were unwilling to compromise for the sake of peace, is what any medieval monarch would've done. And considering what you said about Edward's reasons for executing Clarence, your suggestion that Richard executed his friend for believing some rumours, seems rather hypocritical.
Well, sending them back to their mother with a big bag of sweets once he had cheated them out of their inheritance might have been a better way of protecting their lives than having them murdered in the Tower and burying their bodies under an unused stairwell, mightn't it?
Sending them back to Elizabeth Woodville, in a less secure home, in a more vulnerable place, wouldn't have been the best way to protect them. The Tower was the most secure palace at the time, so it was obviously a safer place to house them.
And until DNA testing is done on the remains of the two childen found under the stairs, nobody can be certain that they're the princes. There's some evidence that they're actually Saxon remains.
Already explained. While Edward IV was king there was no way Richard could become King - so he kept his head down, his nose clean, and just did whatever Edward told him to do. Once Edward was dead, the doorway was open to him, as long as he removed everyone who stood in his way. Which he did.
No, there isn't. But it would have been so simple for him to show the world that he didn't kill his nephews - by either letting them return to their family, or even if he was intent on still keeping them prisoner, at least letting the world see that they were still alive. But he didn't do this. Why not? If I had been asked by (say) my brother to look after his cat, and nobody had seen this cat for months, and people started saying that I had killed the cat, do you know what I would do to prove that the cat was still alive? I'd let people see the cat. That's it. It's that simple. Look everyone, the cat isn't dead because - here he is. Breathing. Eating. Sleeping. Licking his arse. Whatever cats do.
Now why didn't Richard do that once people started saying he had killed the boys? Answer - because he had killed them. The only reason to not show the boys alive and well when the whole country demanded it is if they weren't alive and well. There ain't no other explanation for his behaviour. Unless he really had gone round the bend completely by then and couldn't work out that to stop the country from telling lies about him he just shows them the truth.
It's wouldn't have been wise to present the children to prove that they were still alive, while there was still a threat to them. As long as there was conflict, they were in danger. And the Woodville's supporters would have used their presence to try to start a rebellion against the King, which would've increased instability for the country, and prolonged the wars. Richard was concerned for the welfare or the people, and peace for the nation, so he wouldn't have done anything to make the situation worse.
And if someone else had murdered them, how could he have produced them if he didn't know where they were? What if he had hidden them in another country for their own safety? Wouldn't bringing them back to prove they were alive have defeated this object? If he intended to make himself the target to protect them, then he wouldn't have brought them back just to quosh a few rumours, particularly when they were far from the only ones.
Given that the rumours about Richard only became the accepted account after Tudor took the throne, and More wrote his account of events on Tudor's orders, then we don't even know that the extent of the rumours were sufficient at the time, to even be of any real concern to Richard, or to anyone else.
Many people agree there. Some feel that it's only a matter of time before someone's child gets hurt on it too. Some of those edges look quite dangerous.
Jeez the woman who wrote that article was as daft as a brush. If she thinks a garden is going to look amazing in a few weeks (while bits of it are still being constructed) then she clearly has no idea how horticulture works.
The cathedral is probably going down the herbaceous perennial route, with shrubbery, grasses etc, all of which take years to become established.
"The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants"
No shit Sherlock!!
The alternative would be mass planting of quick annuals like (the ubiquitous) petunia, impatiens and geraniums. All of which look tacky and 'pub beer garden', in my view.
Here I finally agree with you. A good garden can taken several years to mature, and perennials tend to look a bit bland until they're fully established and mature.
Even large shrubs need time to settle into a new space. Annuals are nice in hanging baskets and troughs, but tend to be more appropriate in gardens in seaside resorts and for features like floral clocks and such.
Jeez the woman who wrote that article was as daft as a brush. If she thinks a garden is going to look amazing in a few weeks (while bits of it are still being constructed) then she clearly has no idea how horticulture works.
The cathedral is probably going down the herbaceous perennial route, with shrubbery, grasses etc, all of which take years to become established.
"The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants"
No shit Sherlock!!
The alternative would be mass planting of quick annuals like (the ubiquitous) petunia, impatiens and geraniums. All of which look tacky and 'pub beer garden', in my view.
It's a shame if they have grubbed up memorials - I wonder if that woman is even right, in saying that? The MIs will have been recorded years ago, if it's the case, although hopefully the stones have been moved elsewhere in the churchyard and can still be seen...
Must be hard to know how to pitch it in terms of garden design, though as being central in a city it will inevitably have to lean more towards parks n gardens - various shrubs, and cultivars, rather than have wild areas, as rural churchyards increasingly have.
Often, memorials that were once upright were laid down flat to the ground in the 20thC and I have seen some churches where they deliberately let the moss grow over them as it actually preserves the inscriptions and prevents weathering. So I'm all about the benign neglect and wildlife. It is hard to do that in this kind of space, though.
Probably wise not to have a grand opening if the place wasn't yet complete (think how fast they make those spaces with established looking plants at Chelsea), but it's no big deal. As a genealogist, the bit that concerns me is if they really have moved headstones - it happened in the past in churchyards where they needed to make space for the next load of burials, but if there have been no burials there for decades and decades, there'd be no need to ship out the memorials.
Have to agree with you there, though, it would always be hard to know how to re-design a space like that and that woman's urge for "instant colour" probably misses the point of such a space.
No two ways about it, it's still a building site. The Cathedral Gardens is within the R3 Trail plan and that is within the Connecting Leicester Regeneration project. I think their deadlines will cut through the Garden opening just past, the R3 Centre at the end of the month and the re-interment next spring. This is bringing a huge swathe of central, historic Leicester back to being pedestrian friendly after seventy years of being barged aside for ever more grandiose and self-defeating traffic management schemes, so I'm sure patience will bring its own reward. If everything has to be tickety boo for you, probably better to come this time next year.
For me, the Cathedral Gardens is a bit curate's egg - though as it replaces a dreary approach of a walled churchyard and scrappy grass with the gravestones cleared to one side - it's already showing a profit. I'm not hugely enamoured with modern landscaping orthodoxy - pastels and low maintenance and a meadow bit for wild flowers. I've not yet spotted a rose - white or red - please don't tell me the thorns are an elf and safety issue. It will bed down to its obvious function of being a meeting space, an assembly point for lost children and sun trap for office workers to eat their sandwiches, and do a bit of sun bathing on odd days.
I do like the "Towards Stillness" piece of public art - though I've only seen it in bright sunlight. It's been well-placed amongst the modern front of the diocesan offices and the ancient Guildhall - works well and though roped off today will be enhanced by kiddies playing tag and wotnot in amongst the panels. The R3 statue is up in the SW corner, virtually a pike's length from the Greyfriars site and where the gravestones from the churchyard crowd together like so many miniature skyscrapers in a model village - amusing and curiously moving, so all is good.
And the excellent news just keeps on coming!
Thank you so much for that.
I guess we can all go home now boys and girls- nothing to see here, apparently
And the excellent news just keeps on coming!
Thank you so much for that.
I guess we can all go home now boys and girls- nothing to see here, apparently
Well yes really. It's all over bar the shouting, hence why the thread is mostly quiet these days.
This was obvious the minute the PA and the Yorkies crashed so comprehensively in the JR.
Wow thanks for that. I love these artists' impressions of things, based on archaeology etc.
What struck me was the remarkable similarity between the greyfriars' church here and the one at Carmarthen.
They are pretty much exactly the same - long buildings, non-cruciform, with a slender spire at the centre, and a lengthy chancel. I wish I had a picture or a link to show, but I can't find one.
The only difference being that Carmarthen had a far larger set of conventual buildings e.g. a double cloister, making it one of the two biggest franciscan friaries in the UK.
Comments
ALERT! ALERT! Lady Margaret Beaufort is in the house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Parts-Leicester-s-new-2-5-million-Cathedral/story-21348025-detail/story.html#sGqhGX3zpehJiwbl.99
It's quite usual to have official openings when work isn't fully completed and then to continue the work.
Similarly, it's quite usual to cordon discreet areas off when there is likely to be machinery moving about, so as not to conflict with pedestrians. No big deal. Despite your attempt to get some mileage out of it :cool:
This visitor thought it was bland, underwhelming and a total waste of money:
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/cathedral-s-pound-2-5m-gardens-left-little/story-21460277-detail/story.html
It's almost as if the garden 'designers' have taken the Richard III tomb as their inspiration.
It'll be vandalised within six months.
The cathedral is probably going down the herbaceous perennial route, with shrubbery, grasses etc, all of which take years to become established.
"The gardens lacked colour, which I think was due to the maturity of the plants"
No shit Sherlock!!
The alternative would be mass planting of quick annuals like (the ubiquitous) petunia, impatiens and geraniums. All of which look tacky and 'pub beer garden', in my view.
It's a shame if they have grubbed up memorials - I wonder if that woman is even right, in saying that? The MIs will have been recorded years ago, if it's the case, although hopefully the stones have been moved elsewhere in the churchyard and can still be seen...
Must be hard to know how to pitch it in terms of garden design, though as being central in a city it will inevitably have to lean more towards parks n gardens - various shrubs, and cultivars, rather than have wild areas, as rural churchyards increasingly have.
Often, memorials that were once upright were laid down flat to the ground in the 20thC and I have seen some churches where they deliberately let the moss grow over them as it actually preserves the inscriptions and prevents weathering. So I'm all about the benign neglect and wildlife. It is hard to do that in this kind of space, though.
Probably wise not to have a grand opening if the place wasn't yet complete (think how fast they make those spaces with established looking plants at Chelsea), but it's no big deal. As a genealogist, the bit that concerns me is if they really have moved headstones - it happened in the past in churchyards where they needed to make space for the next load of burials, but if there have been no burials there for decades and decades, there'd be no need to ship out the memorials.
Have to agree with you there, though, it would always be hard to know how to re-design a space like that and that woman's urge for "instant colour" probably misses the point of such a space.
If your family chooses to believe the rumours and propaganda, then that's up to them. But there isn't proof that Richard was evil, quite the opposite. All the contemporary evidence praises him for being a good and fair King, and most accounts show that he was a decent man. Perhaps your family ought to read them to get a more balanced view.
http://www.richardiiiboarandbanner.com/richard_iii_lawmaker.html
http://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/livery-maintenance-and-richard-iii/
http://www.richardiii.net/2_3_0_riii_leadership.php
http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm
http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/about/richard%E2%80%99s-achievements/
Your family certainly seems to be in the minority, the campaign group has received thousands of letters, e-mails and comments from people from Yorkshire, all expressing support for Richard, and praising him for the beneficial law changes he made, and the good he did in his life, and not just during his reign. There's been a great outpouring of affection from the county, and beyond. It's only you and your family who seems to have a venomous hatred of him.
You may consider that he was crowned illegally, but parliament disagreed, and he was anointed just as any other monarch. Like it or not, Richard was legally King.
It was the Woodvilles who were returning Edward V to London, in order to make a grab for the throne. They thought that if they could crown him quickly, they could control him and seize power for themselves. Documented history again. Richard wasn't the one who found them to be illegitimate, he had to be persuaded of this.
Learning history from Shakespeare is a little like learning about the war from Hollywood films, you're not going to get any accuracy, because it's mostly embellished or fabricated for the purposes of entertainment. Far more interesting to present Richard as a monster, than to tell the truth. And Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor, so he was hardly likely to tell the truth about Henry Tudor's enemy. Doing so could've cost him his head.
Rumours are not evidence, nor do they provide proof. There were lots of rumours about the disappearance of the princes, murder was among them, and the finger was pointed at a number of suspects. Several people had the motive to kill the princes, and Richard was one of the few whose possible motive was the weakest. In fact he had more to lose than gain by such a thing. Henry Tudor's mother Margaret Beaufort, had access to the Tower, and she, Bishop Morton, Elizabeth Woodville, and William Stanley, all had access to the princes, and all had motives. There were rumours about them being possible murderers as well, and also rumours about the princes being in hiding, or hidden away in another country.
Tyrrell was known to have been mentally ill, it's now believed that he was schizophrenic. He confessed under torture by Tudor, so it was unlikely to have been a genuine confession. So his confession is not credible, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
http://www.geni.com/people/Sir-James-Tyrrell-Kt/6000000006444136915
Richard loved his family, and was protective of all of them - he swore to his brother to protect his nephews. The Tower was a secure and luxurious palace at that time, and what better place to protect two children, than in the safest building that he owned? The children were seen playing in the courtyard gardens, long after they were thought to have disappeared. So it's not even known if they were murdered at all, or who was responsible if they were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtVWf_jo-Yk (from 4.48 - recorded 2009)
Insisting that he was guilty just because you believe he was, doesn't prove anything.
Richard continued to plead for Clarence's life, even then. He tried everything he could to persuade Edward not to execute him, but in vain. Clarence may have been a traitor, or he may have been misguided and foolish. But he was right about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville not being legal, as Edward was betrothed to (and may have actually been married to) Eleanor Butler at the time, and he also had a number of mistresses. That combined with the rumours that Edward himself wasn't legitimate, could easily explain why Clarence acted the way he did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Eleanor_Talbot
His other mistake was in believing Henry VI, when it was known that Henry was mad, and unfit to rule himself. So Clarence's behaviour was more misguided than treasonous, and Richard knew that. Which is why he appealed for leniency on his brother's behalf. But Edward was quite unforgiving and brutal, and refused. There was no reason why Edward could not have simply imprisoned his brother, or sent him away. Execution wasn't necessary, which is why I classed it as murder.
Unless you can provide evidence that Richard murdered his nephews, then he's innocent until proven guilty, whether you agree with that or not.
Why couldn't Richard have shed tears, simply because he loved his brother? If he didn't, and only wanted power and to get closer to the throne, then his trying to save his Clarence's life doesn't make sense. As I said, Edward did have other options, imprisonment, exile, etc, but chose to go for execution. But that doesn't make Richard an opportunist, if he was, then he'd have stayed out of the situation, and let it happen sooner.
There's too much evidence about Richard's just character to fit the person you're describing. The articles I posted above tells you more about his personality and behaviour, if you'd like to read them?
It's your opinion that Richard seized the crown for himself, contemporary sources show that he had to be persuaded to accept it, and was so because he was convinced of his brother's illegitimacy, his illegal marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and because it would provide grater protection to the princes, if they weren't the target for potential regicide. Richard took them from the throne to try to protect them, and make himself the target. You have no evidence otherwise.
Again, contemporary historical sources disagree. Nobody knows exactly what Richard was thinking and feeling, we can only speculate on why he reacted the way he did. But the evidence points to his believing his nephews illegitimacy, and his character points to his trying to protect them, particularly from the Woodvilles, who were known to have been power-hungry. The family's ambitions were part of the reason for the continuing wars.
Removing those who were unwilling to compromise for the sake of peace, is what any medieval monarch would've done. And considering what you said about Edward's reasons for executing Clarence, your suggestion that Richard executed his friend for believing some rumours, seems rather hypocritical.
Sending them back to Elizabeth Woodville, in a less secure home, in a more vulnerable place, wouldn't have been the best way to protect them. The Tower was the most secure palace at the time, so it was obviously a safer place to house them.
And until DNA testing is done on the remains of the two childen found under the stairs, nobody can be certain that they're the princes. There's some evidence that they're actually Saxon remains.
You have proof of these accusations?
It's wouldn't have been wise to present the children to prove that they were still alive, while there was still a threat to them. As long as there was conflict, they were in danger. And the Woodville's supporters would have used their presence to try to start a rebellion against the King, which would've increased instability for the country, and prolonged the wars. Richard was concerned for the welfare or the people, and peace for the nation, so he wouldn't have done anything to make the situation worse.
And if someone else had murdered them, how could he have produced them if he didn't know where they were? What if he had hidden them in another country for their own safety? Wouldn't bringing them back to prove they were alive have defeated this object? If he intended to make himself the target to protect them, then he wouldn't have brought them back just to quosh a few rumours, particularly when they were far from the only ones.
Given that the rumours about Richard only became the accepted account after Tudor took the throne, and More wrote his account of events on Tudor's orders, then we don't even know that the extent of the rumours were sufficient at the time, to even be of any real concern to Richard, or to anyone else.
I heard that the workmen were on strike, but I don't know if they still are.
Many people agree there. Some feel that it's only a matter of time before someone's child gets hurt on it too. Some of those edges look quite dangerous.
Here I finally agree with you. A good garden can taken several years to mature, and perennials tend to look a bit bland until they're fully established and mature.
Even large shrubs need time to settle into a new space. Annuals are nice in hanging baskets and troughs, but tend to be more appropriate in gardens in seaside resorts and for features like floral clocks and such.
No two ways about it, it's still a building site. The Cathedral Gardens is within the R3 Trail plan and that is within the Connecting Leicester Regeneration project. I think their deadlines will cut through the Garden opening just past, the R3 Centre at the end of the month and the re-interment next spring. This is bringing a huge swathe of central, historic Leicester back to being pedestrian friendly after seventy years of being barged aside for ever more grandiose and self-defeating traffic management schemes, so I'm sure patience will bring its own reward. If everything has to be tickety boo for you, probably better to come this time next year.
For me, the Cathedral Gardens is a bit curate's egg - though as it replaces a dreary approach of a walled churchyard and scrappy grass with the gravestones cleared to one side - it's already showing a profit. I'm not hugely enamoured with modern landscaping orthodoxy - pastels and low maintenance and a meadow bit for wild flowers. I've not yet spotted a rose - white or red - please don't tell me the thorns are an elf and safety issue. It will bed down to its obvious function of being a meeting space, an assembly point for lost children and sun trap for office workers to eat their sandwiches, and do a bit of sun bathing on odd days.
I do like the "Towards Stillness" piece of public art - though I've only seen it in bright sunlight. It's been well-placed amongst the modern front of the diocesan offices and the ancient Guildhall - works well and though roped off today will be enhanced by kiddies playing tag and wotnot in amongst the panels. The R3 statue is up in the SW corner, virtually a pike's length from the Greyfriars site and where the gravestones from the churchyard crowd together like so many miniature skyscrapers in a model village - amusing and curiously moving, so all is good.
Well that's simply MARVELLOUS.
Heads up everyone- we can all move on from any debate at all about this issue now. All is apparently good
And the excellent news just keeps on coming!
Thank you so much for that.
I guess we can all go home now boys and girls- nothing to see here, apparently
Well yes really. It's all over bar the shouting, hence why the thread is mostly quiet these days.
This was obvious the minute the PA and the Yorkies crashed so comprehensively in the JR.
I'm sorry, I only expressed my opinion and certainly wouldn't want to stifle any debate on whatever it is you think you are debating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roQHpgsSg4s
Wow thanks for that. I love these artists' impressions of things, based on archaeology etc.
What struck me was the remarkable similarity between the greyfriars' church here and the one at Carmarthen.
They are pretty much exactly the same - long buildings, non-cruciform, with a slender spire at the centre, and a lengthy chancel. I wish I had a picture or a link to show, but I can't find one.
The only difference being that Carmarthen had a far larger set of conventual buildings e.g. a double cloister, making it one of the two biggest franciscan friaries in the UK.
Look at page 2 of this document on Carmarthen friary:
http://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/projects/CGF/CGFTiles.PDF
Very similar to Leicester isn't it.
The 'Yorkies' have been very busy in the last two weeks. There's a lot going on that you don't know about. Will post when it's ready to go public.
Oooh how exciting. Have you all 'found' Richard III's will?!
Check your inbox
Now covert PMing. I'm absolutely quaking here.
Not the petition to the Queen, by any chance?