Bottom line is we can't ever know precisely who buried him and in what circumstances. For my money, the fact he was inside the friary suggests it was important to get him underground fast, but somewhere more defensible than out in the graveyard.
However 'neglectful' friars could be (and I know from reading a lot of Middle English they were thought to be pretty dodgy) they would have been unlikely not to have performed the relevant rites.
This would be my view as well Hogzilla. I just can't see there not being any rights said at all, even if the rest of the burial was done without any ceremony.
This is what I mean, it can't be said for certain either way. We can't say that they definitely didn't give proper rites, or that they definitely did. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that these corners were more likely to have been cut, than not, given the circumstantial evidence of careless burial we see today. That, combined with the contemporary writings.
It doesn't surprise me that your prejudice colours your speculations.
Besmirching the friars is pretty low, but nothing less than I'd expect.
The greyfriars throughout the land were beloved for their altruism and care for the sick and dying. They adorned their churches but usually lived poor lives, believing in welfare for the needy and active acts of goodness rather than passive reclusive ones like the Cistercians did.
The Augustinians were altogether more shrewd and self-serving too.
I very very much doubt they would bury anyone in the holiest part of their church without the appropriate rites, not least because they had very definite theological protocols to observe, which, if ignored, could incur the wrath of God.
Nonsense of course, but nonsense they believed in absolutely.
It doesn't surprise me that your prejudice colours your speculations.
Besmirching the friars is pretty low, but nothing less than I'd expect.
The greyfriars throughout the land were beloved for their altruism and care for the sick and dying. They adorned their churches but usually lived poor lives, believing in welfare for the needy and active acts of goodness rather than passive reclusive ones like the Cistercians did.
The Augustinians were altogether more shrewd and self-serving too.
I very very much doubt they would bury anyone in the holiest part of their church without the appropriate rites, not least because they had very definite theological protocols to observe, which, if ignored, could incur the wrath of God.
Nonsense of course, but nonsense they believed in absolutely.
I think we're flying blind tbh, though I think it would be simple to grasp the point that if you're Henry VIII or his descendants, you're probably going to encourage tales of monastic debauchery and excess to cover the fact that you and yours have just run off with the loot.
It doesn't surprise me that your prejudice colours your speculations.
Besmirching the friars is pretty low, but nothing less than I'd expect.
Was Francis Bacon prejudiced? I quote again:
Francis Bacon, writing many years after, but writing for the Tudors states - "Henry" of his nobleness gave charge unto the friars of Leicester to see an honourable interment to be given to him, yet the religious people themselves being not far from the humours of the vulgar, neglected it; wherein, nevertheless, they did not incur any man's blame or censure."
Also - in a History of Leicestershire it says this about the Friars in 1528 - "In 1528 the parishioners complained that the clergy laughed and talked together during services and omitted to wear their surplices. The vicar generally sent a Franciscan friar to visit the sick, and the friar was described as both neglectful and indiscreet."
Hmm one report, and from this mysterious woman you've quoted, without an actual title to the account or a link.
Seeing as the friary (like all other greyfriars houses) had a public precinct for the distribution of alms, and an infirmary, I very much doubt they were that neglectful, and of course by 1528 all such religious houses were being cynically denigrated because King Henry VIII wanted their cash and assets.
Sorry - must try harder.
Also, Francis Bacon wasn't even born until 1561, 23 years after the friary ceased to exist.
It is well documented historically, that many monks and orders weren't as 'holy' as they should have been through the ages, not just in this country but across the entire continent. I've been shown evidence for years, that monks could be greedy, unscrupulous, corrupt, neglectful, and have considerable vices, due to the power that churches have held at times through the centuries. Not to say that they were all like this, but a very large proportion, certainly.
These are historical facts, which I'm sure you could find out for youself if you really wanted to, without expecting me to furnish you with links all the time, which you will then criticise because you don't want to believe the evidence.
My belief that the frairy monks were neglectful, comes not just from Francis Bacon, but from the other sources I posted, and from visual evidence of the state of Richard's grave, and the way in which his body was lying when he was dug up. There's more than enough there to suggest at the very least, carelessness, and from what I've learned about monks for the last two decades, I don't believe that they were as likely to have shown the religious dignity that would otherwise have been expected in such a situation. And yet again I remind you, that I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
I suggest that you read The Great Controversy by E.G. White, there's a fair bit about religious corruption and the behaviour of monks through the dark and middle ages in there.
Hmm one report, and from this mysterious woman you've quoted, without an actual title to the account or a link.
She follows this thread, but doesn't have an account herself, as far as I know. If she wishes to join and reply to your post, she will do, but it's not for me to breach her privacy.
I thought everyone was keeping quiet because of the cringeworthy embarrassment. The Yorkshire Post is a failing local rag (last known circulation <30000 and falling like a stone),
so it's probably touch and go whether it will be dead and buried before King Dick.
I wouldn't call that much better. What does it matter anyway? The billboards will get much more local attention.
Personally, I thought the Leicester Mercury campaign was conducted with just the right amount of passion and humour - especially when they decided to test the waters in York itself - it was funny, witty, tongue in cheek and all very much in good humour.
This is just crass. And the truth of the matter is that, if a car park hadn't been built over the site of Greyfriars, there's a blooming good chance that something would have been built which had much larger foundations, many years ago - and the grave may not have survived at all. So those who are pleased that Richard has been found should be glad that a car park was built as that is what has ultimately been responsible for his grave's survival. But it's so easy to be snarky about a car park, isn't it. As far as the grave site is concerned, it meant it was preserved.
As for those billboards - they only get attention if they are posting what people want to see - the population of Yorkshire really don't seem to be that interested. The poll that the paper was running didn't exactly go wild, from my observation - was much less than 2000 at my last recollection.
Personally, I thought the Leicester Mercury campaign was conducted with just the right amount of passion and humour - especially when they decided to test the waters in York itself - it was funny, witty, tongue in cheek and all very much in good humour.
The Leicester Mercury campaign was full of provocative quotes, inaccuracies, and misleading information about Richard and his life. Not only that, but it promoted the blog which libelled several members of both the campaign and the PA, that has since been removed. Something which was far from 'in good humour', rather, outright nasty at times.
And the article about getting Leicester support from signatures in York, didn't mention that the reporter got only two or three signatures, and almost everyone he approached refused, and told him they supported a York reburial. He admitted this later (on one of the Facebook pages I think it was, but I don't recall which one). As the article was then presented as the people of York supporting Leicester, it was far from the truth.
The Leicester Mercury campaign was full of provocative quotes, inaccuracies, and misleading information about Richard and his life. Not only that, but it promoted the blog which libelled several members of both the campaign and the PA, that has since been removed. Something which was far from 'in good humour', rather, outright nasty at times.
And the article about getting Leicester support from signatures in York, didn't mention that the reporter got only two or three signatures, and almost everyone he approached refused, and told him they supported a York reburial. He admitted this later (on one of the Facebook pages I think it was, but I don't recall which one). As the article was then presented as the people of York supporting Leicester, it was far from the truth.
The Leicester Mercury campaign was full of provocative quotes, inaccuracies, and misleading information about Richard and his life. Not only that, but it promoted the blog which libelled several members of both the campaign and the PA, that has since been removed. Something which was far from 'in good humour', rather, outright nasty at times.
And the article about getting Leicester support from signatures in York, didn't mention that the reporter got only two or three signatures, and almost everyone he approached refused, and told him they supported a York reburial. He admitted this later (on one of the Facebook pages I think it was, but I don't recall which one). As the article was then presented as the people of York supporting Leicester, it was far from the truth.
In comparison, these billboards are mild.
The blog may have been an irritation to the campaign and the PA but it certainly wasn't libellous - and the reason it was taken down, was because a members of the campaign subjected the author to a campaign of personal harassment - ringing him at work and pretending to be a reporter from the Yorkshire Post and attempting to get him in trouble with his employer! Also harvesting photographs of him from around the internet and using them on social network sites - which I personally witnessed. As you seem to have followed the whole thing you'll know that it went much further than that, got much more personal and nastier than that - I'll not go into detail here but I read about it at the time and still have copies of what I read. It was disgusting and if I ever had any sympathy for the pro-York lobby, it was well and truly lost when I saw the depths some people were prepared to go to, to shut that blog up. It was like some people thought they were living in a Dan brown novel - would have been funny if it wasn't so downright awful
The blog may have been an irritation to the campaign and the PA but it certainly wasn't libellous - and the reason it was taken down, was because a members of the campaign subjected the author to a campaign of personal harassment - ringing him at work and pretending to be a reporter from the Yorkshire Post and attempting to get him in trouble with his employer!
It was libellous, one person who was attacked, sent him a solicitor's letter about it. And we only have his word that he received harrassing phone calls - I know who the person who called him is, and she said that she only made one phone call, asked him a couple of questions (politely) that he refused to answer, and then was abusive about her on his blog.
He deleted any complaints about his version of events, and also deleted most of the comments that contradicted his blog claims. The few that weren't deleted were subjected to ridicule and personal abuse.
And again, his explanation of why he shut the blog down is yet to be proven. As I recall, he claimed that several members of the campaign would be receiving visits from the police about their 'attacking' him. If true, then he was 'harvesting' information too, about their identities. To date, nobody has received a visit from the police, so either he was lying, or wasn't being abused and harrassed to the extent that he claimed. Or possibly not at all.
Two theories about why he really shut down the blog were discussed - either he wasn't getting the attention he wanted any more, or he was warned off continuing by his bosses, because he was a Leicester University employee, and was making them look bad. Either could be just as much a possibility.
So it depends on who you talk to, and who you want to believe. Given that the blogger didn't seem to be bothered by factual information on a number of historical, religious, and personal aspects, I know whose account I believe, and it isn't his.
It was libellous, one person who was attacked, sent him a solicitor's letter about it. And we only have his word that he received harrassing phone calls - I know who the person who called him is, and she said that she only made one phone call, asked him a couple of questions (politely) that he refused to answer, and then was abusive about her on his blog.
He deleted any complaints about his version of events, and also deleted most of the comments that contradicted his blog claims. The few that weren't deleted were subjected to ridicule and personal abuse.
And again, his explanation of why he shut the blog down is yet to be proven. As I recall, he claimed that several members of the campaign would be receiving visits from the police about their 'attacking' him. If true, then he was 'harvesting' information too, about their identities. To date, nobody has received a visit from the police, so either he was lying, or wasn't being abused and harrassed to the extent that he claimed. Or possibly not at all.
Two theories about why he really shut down the blog were discussed - either he wasn't getting the attention he wanted any more, or he was warned off continuing by his bosses, because he was a Leicester University employee, and was making them look bad. Either could be just as much a possibility.
So it depends on who you talk to, and who you want to believe. Given that the blogger didn't seem to be bothered by factual information on a number of historical, religious, and personal aspects, I know whose account I believe, and it isn't his.
Just because someone sends a solicitors letter about something someone said about them doesn't make what they said libellous.
And the person who rang the blogger at work was impersonating a journalist which is a pretty heinous thing to do - I'd have refused to answer her questions and ridiculed her on the blog too, in the circs - and, yes, I do know that it was a woman who made the calls.
As for whether any of the York campaign have actually been visited by the police or not, I don't know and don't really care - I do know that one particular campaign member had a particularly offensive cover photograph on their FB page for a while - fortunately it has been removed now
And the person who rang the blogger at work was impersonating a journalist which is a pretty heinous thing to do - I'd have refused to answer her questions and ridiculed her on the blog too, in the circs - and, yes, I do know that it was a woman who made the calls.
His claims are very much contrary to hers. We don't know exactly what happened, only what both sides claim to have happened. You believe him, I don't. I believe the lady who made the phone call.
And even if she did call him at work, being publically abusive in return is an immature and inappropriate response. Two wrongs not making a right, as they say.
As for whether any of the York campaign have actually been visited by the police or not, I don't know and don't really care - I do know that one particular campaign member had a particularly offensive cover photograph on their FB page for a while - fortunately it has been removed now
I don't know about that, I tend to stay almost exclusively on the private campaign pages, rather than on any personal ones.
But I think we've already established between our own opinions, is that what one person finds offensive, another may not. I found the blogger very offensive. You clearly didn't.
Comments
This would be my view as well Hogzilla. I just can't see there not being any rights said at all, even if the rest of the burial was done without any ceremony.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/global-support-to-bring-king-richard-iii-back-home-to-yorkshire-1-6545355
It doesn't surprise me that your prejudice colours your speculations.
Besmirching the friars is pretty low, but nothing less than I'd expect.
The greyfriars throughout the land were beloved for their altruism and care for the sick and dying. They adorned their churches but usually lived poor lives, believing in welfare for the needy and active acts of goodness rather than passive reclusive ones like the Cistercians did.
The Augustinians were altogether more shrewd and self-serving too.
I very very much doubt they would bury anyone in the holiest part of their church without the appropriate rites, not least because they had very definite theological protocols to observe, which, if ignored, could incur the wrath of God.
Nonsense of course, but nonsense they believed in absolutely.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/scientists-shed-new-light-on-king-in-the-car-parks-life
I think we're flying blind tbh, though I think it would be simple to grasp the point that if you're Henry VIII or his descendants, you're probably going to encourage tales of monastic debauchery and excess to cover the fact that you and yours have just run off with the loot.
Was Francis Bacon prejudiced? I quote again:
Hmm one report, and from this mysterious woman you've quoted, without an actual title to the account or a link.
Seeing as the friary (like all other greyfriars houses) had a public precinct for the distribution of alms, and an infirmary, I very much doubt they were that neglectful, and of course by 1528 all such religious houses were being cynically denigrated because King Henry VIII wanted their cash and assets.
Sorry - must try harder.
Also, Francis Bacon wasn't even born until 1561, 23 years after the friary ceased to exist.
These are historical facts, which I'm sure you could find out for youself if you really wanted to, without expecting me to furnish you with links all the time, which you will then criticise because you don't want to believe the evidence.
My belief that the frairy monks were neglectful, comes not just from Francis Bacon, but from the other sources I posted, and from visual evidence of the state of Richard's grave, and the way in which his body was lying when he was dug up. There's more than enough there to suggest at the very least, carelessness, and from what I've learned about monks for the last two decades, I don't believe that they were as likely to have shown the religious dignity that would otherwise have been expected in such a situation. And yet again I remind you, that I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
I suggest that you read The Great Controversy by E.G. White, there's a fair bit about religious corruption and the behaviour of monks through the dark and middle ages in there.
She follows this thread, but doesn't have an account herself, as far as I know. If she wishes to join and reply to your post, she will do, but it's not for me to breach her privacy.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/top-shakesperean-actor-adds-his-support-to-richard-iii-campaign-1-6547430
And an update for the map of worldwide support:
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zWIY61_MNSeo.k2MSO3BtLfpw
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/plaque-to-mark-spot-where-richard-iii-project-devised.23945601
And the Yorkshire Post has now gone for the jugular:
https://www.facebook.com/PetitionToBringRichardIiiBackToYorkshire/photos/a.447902865281293.95711.447170395354540/654584807946430/?type=1&relevant_count=1
Apparently they've paid for billboards like this, all over the country!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/55196
How crass
I've not seen any report of any outside Yorkshire, actually - quite what they are meant to accomplish, I've no idea, but they are beyond tack!
Sorry, I meant county.
I don't see them as any more crass than the Leicester Mercury's campaign.
Hmm... funny I haven't seen similar billboards in Leicestershire.
Good god, how unbelievably coarse.
I thought everyone was keeping quiet because of the cringeworthy embarrassment. The Yorkshire Post is a failing local rag (last known circulation <30000 and falling like a stone),
so it's probably touch and go whether it will be dead and buried before King Dick.
No, but their articles during their recent campaign hardly covered Leicester in glory.
For the Leicester Mercury:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_Mercury
I wouldn't call that much better. What does it matter anyway? The billboards will get much more local attention.
Personally, I thought the Leicester Mercury campaign was conducted with just the right amount of passion and humour - especially when they decided to test the waters in York itself - it was funny, witty, tongue in cheek and all very much in good humour.
This is just crass. And the truth of the matter is that, if a car park hadn't been built over the site of Greyfriars, there's a blooming good chance that something would have been built which had much larger foundations, many years ago - and the grave may not have survived at all. So those who are pleased that Richard has been found should be glad that a car park was built as that is what has ultimately been responsible for his grave's survival. But it's so easy to be snarky about a car park, isn't it. As far as the grave site is concerned, it meant it was preserved.
As for those billboards - they only get attention if they are posting what people want to see - the population of Yorkshire really don't seem to be that interested. The poll that the paper was running didn't exactly go wild, from my observation - was much less than 2000 at my last recollection.
The Leicester Mercury campaign was full of provocative quotes, inaccuracies, and misleading information about Richard and his life. Not only that, but it promoted the blog which libelled several members of both the campaign and the PA, that has since been removed. Something which was far from 'in good humour', rather, outright nasty at times.
And the article about getting Leicester support from signatures in York, didn't mention that the reporter got only two or three signatures, and almost everyone he approached refused, and told him they supported a York reburial. He admitted this later (on one of the Facebook pages I think it was, but I don't recall which one). As the article was then presented as the people of York supporting Leicester, it was far from the truth.
In comparison, these billboards are mild.
Nope, still cringeworthy.
The blog may have been an irritation to the campaign and the PA but it certainly wasn't libellous - and the reason it was taken down, was because a members of the campaign subjected the author to a campaign of personal harassment - ringing him at work and pretending to be a reporter from the Yorkshire Post and attempting to get him in trouble with his employer! Also harvesting photographs of him from around the internet and using them on social network sites - which I personally witnessed. As you seem to have followed the whole thing you'll know that it went much further than that, got much more personal and nastier than that - I'll not go into detail here but I read about it at the time and still have copies of what I read. It was disgusting and if I ever had any sympathy for the pro-York lobby, it was well and truly lost when I saw the depths some people were prepared to go to, to shut that blog up. It was like some people thought they were living in a Dan brown novel - would have been funny if it wasn't so downright awful
It was libellous, one person who was attacked, sent him a solicitor's letter about it. And we only have his word that he received harrassing phone calls - I know who the person who called him is, and she said that she only made one phone call, asked him a couple of questions (politely) that he refused to answer, and then was abusive about her on his blog.
He deleted any complaints about his version of events, and also deleted most of the comments that contradicted his blog claims. The few that weren't deleted were subjected to ridicule and personal abuse.
And again, his explanation of why he shut the blog down is yet to be proven. As I recall, he claimed that several members of the campaign would be receiving visits from the police about their 'attacking' him. If true, then he was 'harvesting' information too, about their identities. To date, nobody has received a visit from the police, so either he was lying, or wasn't being abused and harrassed to the extent that he claimed. Or possibly not at all.
Two theories about why he really shut down the blog were discussed - either he wasn't getting the attention he wanted any more, or he was warned off continuing by his bosses, because he was a Leicester University employee, and was making them look bad. Either could be just as much a possibility.
So it depends on who you talk to, and who you want to believe. Given that the blogger didn't seem to be bothered by factual information on a number of historical, religious, and personal aspects, I know whose account I believe, and it isn't his.
Just because someone sends a solicitors letter about something someone said about them doesn't make what they said libellous.
And the person who rang the blogger at work was impersonating a journalist which is a pretty heinous thing to do - I'd have refused to answer her questions and ridiculed her on the blog too, in the circs - and, yes, I do know that it was a woman who made the calls.
As for whether any of the York campaign have actually been visited by the police or not, I don't know and don't really care - I do know that one particular campaign member had a particularly offensive cover photograph on their FB page for a while - fortunately it has been removed now
That isn't for us to decide. It's for those involved in any legal action to sort out if court action is taken.
His claims are very much contrary to hers. We don't know exactly what happened, only what both sides claim to have happened. You believe him, I don't. I believe the lady who made the phone call.
And even if she did call him at work, being publically abusive in return is an immature and inappropriate response. Two wrongs not making a right, as they say.
I don't know about that, I tend to stay almost exclusively on the private campaign pages, rather than on any personal ones.
But I think we've already established between our own opinions, is that what one person finds offensive, another may not. I found the blogger very offensive. You clearly didn't.