Then if the courts want proof that they're relatives, they'll order more DNA tests.
As we don't know who the other unknown descendant is, how do we know that they're not one of the fifteen members of the Plantagenet Alliance? It's possible that they might be.
We don't, but the other 14 - unless maternally related to that individual, aren't. These people are not his descendants, they are his sister's and brother's descendants - he doesn't have any proven or documented living descendants.
RE: DNA tests, it won't be scientifically possible to test all of these individuals to see if they are related to Richard and without exhuming dead Plantagenet's and their various families left right and centre, descent won't have to be proven.
What legal authority do the "Plantagenet Alliance" have, anyway?
Like i said previously, I think Richard should be buried at Westminster Abbey - he wasn't the only ruling Monarch of England/UK guilty of "getting rid" of another heir to the throne/reigning monarch.
Give me a valid reason why his remains should be buried in London then!
I don't want him buried in London, I'm arguing that he should be buried in York Minster.
There's evidence from Richard's own letters that he thought of York as his home, and loved the people of the city, and they loved him. He lived in Yorkshire for a good portion of his life, was settled and happy with his family there at Middleham, and that's where his son was buried when he died.
He had a second coronation in York Minster, and plans to build a huge chantry chapel there, where he would pay a hundred people to pray for his soul every day. He was also the last King of the House of York.
His collateral descendants want him returned for burial in York, and many historians agree that he was most likely planning to be buried in the Minster. That's why I'm in favour of York. Because he had a lot of connections there during his life, felt the place was his home, and it's what his family want.
If that's not possible, then Westminster Abbey is an acceptable alternative to me, because it's traditionally where Monarchs were buried, and a suitable place for a King. But perhaps less so since Henry Tudor made himself a huge tomb there.
We don't, but the other 14 - unless maternally related to that individual, aren't. These people are not his descendants, they are his sister's and brother's descendants - he doesn't have any proven or documented living descendants.
Collateral descendants are still descendants, and they can be traced down the family tree. Just because they are great nephews and nieces, doesn't make them any less family.
he wasn't the only ruling Monarch of England/UK guilty of "getting rid" of another heir to the throne/reigning monarch.
You mean the two Princes? There's no proof that he murdered them. I don't understand how so many people can condemn him for murders that there's no evidence of him doing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Several others had as much motive to do that, if not moreso, including Henry Tudor. Some would argue that Richard had no motive at all, as there was nothing he could've gained from killing the Princes. But we'll never know for sure, whatever happened.
I'm just not willing to condemn him for two murders that he may not have committed. That I don't believe he did commit.
This isn't about tourism, it's about doing what's right for a human being and King of England.
King for 2 years 528 years ago and of course there were many who didn't want him as king of England, which includes many also of his so-called supporters of the day.
Who cares anyway. He decided to fight a battle on Leicestershire soil for his own power struggle.
He's a human being, not a possession for personal gain.
Because many people including myself, think that it's morally wrong to use human remains to make money. Disrespectful and unpleasant.
But..... you've always said he "belongs" in magnificent, picturesque, pretty, beautiful York Minster, which needs the funds to maintain such a wonderful building.
There's nobody famous buried in there as far as I know.
Really....in the building that represents the "power capital" of the North? :rolleyes:
I might add further, that as he slept in Leicester the night before the battle, there's a good chance he has relatives there too.
You mean the two Princes? There's no proof that he murdered them. I don't understand how so many people can condemn him for murders that there's no evidence of him doing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Several others had as much motive to do that, if not moreso, including Henry Tudor. Some would argue that Richard had no motive at all, as there was nothing he could've gained from killing the Princes. But we'll never know for sure, whatever happened.
I'm just not willing to condemn him for two murders that he may not have committed. That I don't believe he did commit.
Henry VII was in France, fair enough his mother Margaret Beaufort and/or Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham could have potentially been the culprits, but I personally think Richard either purposely or inadvertently murdered his nephews.
After the Battle of Tewkesbury; Henry VI, his son Edward and his/Margaret's legitimate male Beaufort cousins were all dead and so Margaret and Henry VII were the senior Lancastrian Heirs to the throne, whether it was a legitimate claim or not - So many Lancastrians had died, that Henry became a potential claimant.
But come on, Richard had more motive than the others; he declared his nephews illegitimate and then had himself anointed as King and months later the boys disappeared while in his care...
But..... you've always said he "belongs" in magnificent, picturesque, pretty, beautiful York Minster, which needs the funds to maintain such a wonderful building.
No, I've always said that he should be returned to the city that he thought of as home, and be reinterred in a place that befits his status as King. The Minster where he wanted a hundred people to pray for him daily, in a chantry that he had built specially.
No human being 'belongs' to anybody, living or dead. But his descendants have greater moral right to make decisions regarding his remains than anyone else.
And of course they need to pay for maintainance, or York Minster would fall into ruin. You think that charging a fee to keep a building in good condition is equivalent to charging a fee to make a profit?
I might add further, that as he slept in Leicester the night before the battle, there's a good chance he has relatives there too.
So now you're implying that he fathered children in Leicester the night before the battle? Do you really believe that's what he would've been doing that night? How ridiculous.
There's a letter on the Leicester news site that you may be interested in reading:
If you were crippled with scoliosis and of light build, were short of stature and in constant pain, would you go into battle ahead of your soldiers?
Then, on foot, in light armour, without a helmet, hack your way through heavily-armed men, in mud up to your knees, covered in blood, trying to fight your way through to your arch enemy and kill him?
Let's face it, the bravery of this man was truly incredible, far beyond the people of today.
Please think about Richard the night before the battle, lying in bed, a bed especially carried around for him wherever he went because of the pain in his spine.
The beds of the time had no soft foam or innersprings and were not computer designed for his special condition. He could not pop down and take a few Paracetamol.
It is obvious he had no sleep that last night at the White Boar.
Around and around in his head his plan to kill Henry Tudor would have raged and even if he had drifted off, nightmares of blood, poleaxes and death would have woken him in a sweat, screaming and shaking, his guards at the door, traumatised with fear.
Yet next morning, dressed in armour, mounted on his horse, he had to look confident, fearless and strong as he rode out through West Gate towards Bosworth and his ultimate fate.
Speculation of course, but a far more likely scenario than what you've just implied.
Henry VII was in France, fair enough his mother Margaret Beaufort and/or Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham could have potentially been the culprits, but I personally think Richard either purposely or inadvertently murdered his nephews.
After the Battle of Tewkesbury; Henry VI, his son Edward and his/Margaret's legitimate male Beaufort cousins were all dead and so Margaret and Henry VII were the senior Lancastrian Heirs to the throne, whether it was a legitimate claim or not - So many Lancastrians had died, that Henry became a potential claimant.
But come on, Richard had more motive than the others; he declared his nephews illegitimate and then had himself anointed as King and months later the boys disappeared while in his care...
They may have actually been illegitimate, we'll never know. Richard was offered the crown because of the belief that they were, and had to be persuaded to accept it, as he'd previously sworn an oath of allegiance to his nephew, and was preparing for Edward's coronation. Richard was subsequently crowned and anointed legitimately.
While Richard was preparing for his nephew's coronation, Robert Stillington, who had been the Chancellor of England twice under Edward IV, informed Richard that Edward V could not be legally crowned king. Stillington revealed that Edward had been betrothed to another woman when he married Elizabeth Woodville, making all of the royal children illegitimate. Medieval church law held a consummated betrothal to be as legally binding as a marriage, and illegitimate children were not allowed to inherit.
With the untimely death of his brother, Edward IV in 1483, he was petitioned by the Lords and Commons of Parliament to accept the kingship of England.
I'd think that he probably put his nephews in the Tower to protect them, possibly from the Woodvilles, or from others like Tudor. Beaufort could've been acting on her son's orders, or because she wanted to see him achieve power.
And Richard would likely have got the blame for anything happening to his nephews, whether he did something or not. So what did he have to gain from killing them, particularly if they were illegitimate after all? He'd have more to lose, surely, if people suspected him of murder? That might've weakened his position, and given his enemies more reason to support Henry Tudor.
So now you're implying that he fathered children in Leicester the night before the battle? Do you really believe that's what he would've been doing that night? How ridiculous.
Oh I don't know, he might have thought it was his last opportunity
There's a letter on the Leicester news site that you may be interested in reading:
Oh I don't know, he might have thought it was his last opportunity
Lol, anything's possible. But I doubt it. He expected to win the battle, and couldn't possibly have known that several of his allies were about to switch sides mid-fight.
I don't think he considered that he might be about to die, or he may have left a will or some burial instructions, and we wouldn't be having this debate now!
I agree, he should have a proper tomb, not just a slab of stone let into the floor.
The suggestion of a full size figure in armour for the top of a tomb sounds really good to me. That would be magnificent, especially if it was wearing a gold coronet and holding a sword.
Oh I can. I was hoping you might just have the self awareness to identify it yourself. And you think people from Leicester are simple? ;-) (a little clue for you!)
I don't consider it a negative thing either. I have formed some strong opinions based on what some people I have never met have posted on the internet.
Lol, anything's possible. But I doubt it. He expected to win the battle, and couldn't possibly have known that several of his allies were about to switch sides mid-fight.
He must have had a few doubts surely !
The suggestion of a full size figure in armour for the top of a tomb sounds really good to me. That would be magnificent, especially if it was wearing a gold coronet and holding a sword.
I think that might be a bit OTT for a tomb in a cathedral don't you ? :eek: Even Henry V111 didn't get that !
I thought the tomb the Richard 111 Society designed, was quite striking & tasteful.
It is too sad he is to be buried in Leicester. It should be York, no doubt about it. I have signed the petition, which stands at 26,276, so a long way to go.
I'd be supportive of a challenge to get Henry VIII a proper tomb of his own as well, even though I can't stand the man. It isn't right that he doesn't have one. Just a memorial plaque over the spot he's buried, I think.
I suppose whether a design looks too much or not, depends on the cathedral. A very fancy design could look over the top in a more modest building, but a big cathedral could take something more ornate. And a medieval style tomb wouldn't work in a modern cathedral, but would in a medieval one.
The design would have to be done in a way that 'fits' the surroundings.
It is too sad he is to be buried in Leicester. It should be York, no doubt about it. I have signed the petition, which stands at 26,276, so a long way to go.
spent many years already buried in leicester. no need to move him
It is too sad he is to be buried in Leicester. It should be York, no doubt about it. I have signed the petition, which stands at 26,276, so a long way to go.
Anything could happen yet, there's then legal challenge to come, and from what I've heard, there are several lines of attack, one of which apparently bypasses both the license, and judicial review altogether.
Don't know how though, but it's being looked into.
Comments
Hasn't stopped you though has it?
We don't, but the other 14 - unless maternally related to that individual, aren't. These people are not his descendants, they are his sister's and brother's descendants - he doesn't have any proven or documented living descendants.
RE: DNA tests, it won't be scientifically possible to test all of these individuals to see if they are related to Richard and without exhuming dead Plantagenet's and their various families left right and centre, descent won't have to be proven.
What legal authority do the "Plantagenet Alliance" have, anyway?
Like i said previously, I think Richard should be buried at Westminster Abbey - he wasn't the only ruling Monarch of England/UK guilty of "getting rid" of another heir to the throne/reigning monarch.
There's evidence from Richard's own letters that he thought of York as his home, and loved the people of the city, and they loved him. He lived in Yorkshire for a good portion of his life, was settled and happy with his family there at Middleham, and that's where his son was buried when he died.
He had a second coronation in York Minster, and plans to build a huge chantry chapel there, where he would pay a hundred people to pray for his soul every day. He was also the last King of the House of York.
His collateral descendants want him returned for burial in York, and many historians agree that he was most likely planning to be buried in the Minster. That's why I'm in favour of York. Because he had a lot of connections there during his life, felt the place was his home, and it's what his family want.
If that's not possible, then Westminster Abbey is an acceptable alternative to me, because it's traditionally where Monarchs were buried, and a suitable place for a King. But perhaps less so since Henry Tudor made himself a huge tomb there.
Collateral descendants are still descendants, and they can be traced down the family tree. Just because they are great nephews and nieces, doesn't make them any less family.
That's for the courts to decide.
You mean the two Princes? There's no proof that he murdered them. I don't understand how so many people can condemn him for murders that there's no evidence of him doing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Several others had as much motive to do that, if not moreso, including Henry Tudor. Some would argue that Richard had no motive at all, as there was nothing he could've gained from killing the Princes. But we'll never know for sure, whatever happened.
I'm just not willing to condemn him for two murders that he may not have committed. That I don't believe he did commit.
King for 2 years 528 years ago and of course there were many who didn't want him as king of England, which includes many also of his so-called supporters of the day.
Who cares anyway. He decided to fight a battle on Leicestershire soil for his own power struggle.
But..... you've always said he "belongs" in magnificent, picturesque, pretty, beautiful York Minster, which needs the funds to maintain such a wonderful building.
Really....in the building that represents the "power capital" of the North? :rolleyes:
I might add further, that as he slept in Leicester the night before the battle, there's a good chance he has relatives there too.
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate
Really? You cannot see where you have done exactly the same?
Henry VII was in France, fair enough his mother Margaret Beaufort and/or Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham could have potentially been the culprits, but I personally think Richard either purposely or inadvertently murdered his nephews.
After the Battle of Tewkesbury; Henry VI, his son Edward and his/Margaret's legitimate male Beaufort cousins were all dead and so Margaret and Henry VII were the senior Lancastrian Heirs to the throne, whether it was a legitimate claim or not - So many Lancastrians had died, that Henry became a potential claimant.
But come on, Richard had more motive than the others; he declared his nephews illegitimate and then had himself anointed as King and months later the boys disappeared while in his care...
I love it
If you don't care, then why criticise those of us who do?
No, I've always said that he should be returned to the city that he thought of as home, and be reinterred in a place that befits his status as King. The Minster where he wanted a hundred people to pray for him daily, in a chantry that he had built specially.
No human being 'belongs' to anybody, living or dead. But his descendants have greater moral right to make decisions regarding his remains than anyone else.
And of course they need to pay for maintainance, or York Minster would fall into ruin. You think that charging a fee to keep a building in good condition is equivalent to charging a fee to make a profit?
I said as far as I know. You think that a place can only be a 'power capital' if somebody important is buried there? Why?
My point was that people don't go to the Minster to see famous bones. What point are you trying to make?
So now you're implying that he fathered children in Leicester the night before the battle? Do you really believe that's what he would've been doing that night? How ridiculous.
There's a letter on the Leicester news site that you may be interested in reading:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/s-time-did-brave-monarch-proud-tomb/story-18596128-detail/story.html#axzz2PO1qya1m
Speculation of course, but a far more likely scenario than what you've just implied.
You clearly do or you wouldn't be poking around in this thread
They may have actually been illegitimate, we'll never know. Richard was offered the crown because of the belief that they were, and had to be persuaded to accept it, as he'd previously sworn an oath of allegiance to his nephew, and was preparing for Edward's coronation. Richard was subsequently crowned and anointed legitimately.
http://www.richard111.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm
I'd think that he probably put his nephews in the Tower to protect them, possibly from the Woodvilles, or from others like Tudor. Beaufort could've been acting on her son's orders, or because she wanted to see him achieve power.
And Richard would likely have got the blame for anything happening to his nephews, whether he did something or not. So what did he have to gain from killing them, particularly if they were illegitimate after all? He'd have more to lose, surely, if people suspected him of murder? That might've weakened his position, and given his enemies more reason to support Henry Tudor.
No I can't. As I said, why don't you enlighten me.
Oh I don't know, he might have thought it was his last opportunity
I agree, he should have a proper tomb, not just a slab of stone let into the floor.
Lol, anything's possible. But I doubt it. He expected to win the battle, and couldn't possibly have known that several of his allies were about to switch sides mid-fight.
I don't think he considered that he might be about to die, or he may have left a will or some burial instructions, and we wouldn't be having this debate now!
The suggestion of a full size figure in armour for the top of a tomb sounds really good to me. That would be magnificent, especially if it was wearing a gold coronet and holding a sword.
Not even one where it might look like you are?
Nope, and neither can you, obviously.
Oh I can. I was hoping you might just have the self awareness to identify it yourself. And you think people from Leicester are simple? ;-) (a little clue for you!)
I don't consider it a negative thing either. I have formed some strong opinions based on what some people I have never met have posted on the internet.
He must have had a few doubts surely !
I think that might be a bit OTT for a tomb in a cathedral don't you ? :eek: Even Henry V111 didn't get that !
I thought the tomb the Richard 111 Society designed, was quite striking & tasteful.
Who knows, who knows!
No, but have you seen his father's tomb?
http://static.westminster-abbey.org/assets/thumbnail/0017/42452/Henry-VII-tomb-east-end-72-Westminster-Abbey-copyright.jpg
http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Henry_VII_and_Elizabeth_tomb_1512-18.jpeg
Now that's over the top!
I'd be supportive of a challenge to get Henry VIII a proper tomb of his own as well, even though I can't stand the man. It isn't right that he doesn't have one. Just a memorial plaque over the spot he's buried, I think.
I suppose whether a design looks too much or not, depends on the cathedral. A very fancy design could look over the top in a more modest building, but a big cathedral could take something more ornate. And a medieval style tomb wouldn't work in a modern cathedral, but would in a medieval one.
The design would have to be done in a way that 'fits' the surroundings.
spent many years already buried in leicester. no need to move him
Anything could happen yet, there's then legal challenge to come, and from what I've heard, there are several lines of attack, one of which apparently bypasses both the license, and judicial review altogether.
Don't know how though, but it's being looked into.