Good, so you agree that there is 'evidence' that Richard III wanted to be buried at York Minster.
Do you have any evidence that he wanted to be buried in a former parish church in Leicester?
'Yes' or 'no' will suffice.
Your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion that was being had, as evidenced by you ignoring the rest of my post and as you have continued to go off at complete tangents for most of this thread I shall not dignify your latest "yes" "no" ultimatum with a response. If I was playing your game however, I could rephrase the question and ask if there was any evidence that he didn't?;-)
So you feel that it's acceptable to ignore the known wishes of a dead man, and that the law would support that, if presented with a will?
His reburial isn't based on sound archealogical grounds, just convenient ones. And selective religious grounds have been used to cover up greed. Laws can also be changed, so who's to say in a few years from now, that the law will continue to support the current stance?
I said 'most' historians. Why do Leicester supporters cherry-pick what I post? Is it so that you can continue to twist what I'm saying to fit your own argument?
The general consensus is that Richard wanted to be buried in York. Most historians agree, based on the evidence. There's nothing to show any indication otherwise.
As there's no evidence of his being a child-murderer, usurper, or incestuous, but there's nothing concrete to disprove anything, those things can only be guessed at. A person's conclusion can only be based on either their acceptance of the traditional view of him, or their study of the good things he did, the laws he made, and his general documented behaviour. It depends then, on if a person believes that actions speak louder than unfounded accusations.
Why would it make it more likely? Having a large number of priests' prayers would get him to heaven more quickly, so he believed. If he could afford it, why wouldn't he want to go to heaven more quickly, whatever kind of life he'd led?
Given what I've studied about the corruption of monks in the dark and middle ages, I'd say yes, it's perfectly possible. We can never be sure that he absolutely did have proper rites, so it would be wrong to assume that they weren't needed.
And where would be the harm in giving him a funeral, even if he had already had one?
They may be Anglican, but York Minster holds catholic services too, and was catholic during Richard's life, so still has that connection.
It wasn't safe to do so. Anyone who tried would've been murdered by Tudor.
Why shouldn't he have a catholic reburial? We can't be certain that he had one in the first place. Without proof it would be wrong to assume that he definitely did, and doesn't need one.
BIB. For the umpteenth time!!!! There is no direct incontrovertible evidence of his "known wishes" only circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in several ways as pointed out by numerous other posters throughout this thread and within the past couple of days.
In any case, it's all irrelevant - many people on FB have said that Leicester is the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried well .... Leicester is going to be the last place Richard will be buried so all's good, yes?
But you are happy to accept circumstantial evidence regarding his wishes as to place of burial.
(That's not a question)
In any case, it's all irrelevant - many people on FB have said that Leicester is the last place Richard would have wanted to be buried well .... Leicester is going to be the last place Richard will be buried so all's good, yes?
I'm merely pointing out the rather blatant hypocrisy of those who gnash their teeth about the lack of 'evidence' for Richard III's proposed burial at Westminster or York but quite happily accept the lack of 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them to do so.
Your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion that was being had, as evidenced by you ignoring the rest of my post and as you have continued to go off at complete tangents for most of this thread I shall not dignify your latest "yes" "no" ultimatum with a response. If I was playing your game however, I could rephrase the question and ask if there was any evidence that he didn't?;-)
BIB. For the umpteenth time!!!! There is no direct incontrovertible evidence of his "known wishes" only circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in several ways as pointed out by numerous other posters throughout this thread and within the past couple of days.
Is there even any circumstantial evidence that he would've wished to be buried in a Leicester parish church? At least the York Minister option has some evidence in its favour in that regard. Leicester has nothing.
ETA: I do find it quite amusing that 88% of the people who have voted on the Leicester Mercury poll re. whether they liked the tomb design or not have voted 'No' Nothing like keeping the locals on side...
I'm merely pointing out the rather blatant hypocrisy of those who gnash their teeth about the lack of 'evidence' for Richard III's proposed burial at Westminster or York but quite happily accept the lack of 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them to do so.
It's very similar to the hypocrisy of those who are quite happy to accept the circumstantial evidence for Richard's plans to be buried in York, but who refuse to accept the 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them not to do so
Is there even any circumstantial evidence that he would've wished to be buried in a Leicester parish church? At least the York Minister option has some evidence in its favour in that regard. Leicester has nothing.
ETA: I do find it quite amusing that 88% of the people who have voted on the Leicester Mercury poll re. whether they liked the tomb design or not have voted 'No' Nothing like keeping the locals on side...
The point is though, it doesn't really matter that Leicester may not have been his place of choice. That is where his story took him and that is where the Law has decreed he will stay.
And it's also irrelevant whether the online poll results in 88% liking or disliking the tomb design or not. The aim of this hasn't been to 'keep the locals on side' if you read the Cathedral's comments. It has been to provide a fitting and respectful tomb for a former king. Not a shrine, not a C21st version of a C15th tomb, but a dignified, respectful marker for his grave. And that is what he will have.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
It's very similar to the hypocrisy of those who are quite happy to accept the circumstantial evidence for Richard's plans to be buried in York, but who refuse to accept the 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them not to do so
The point is though, it doesn't really matter that Leicester may not have been his place of choice. That is where his story took him and that is where the Law has decreed he will stay.
And it's also irrelevant whether the online poll results in 88% liking or disliking the tomb design or not. The aim of this hasn't been to 'keep the locals on side' if you read the Cathedral's comments. It has been to provide a fitting and respectful tomb for a former king. Not a shrine, not a C21st version of a C15th tomb, but a dignified, respectful marker for his grave. And that is what he will have.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
The point is though, it doesn't really matter that Leicester may not have been his place of choice. That is where his story took him and that is where the Law has decreed he will stay.
And it's also irrelevant whether the online poll results in 88% liking or disliking the tomb design or not. The aim of this hasn't been to 'keep the locals on side' if you read the Cathedral's comments. It has been to provide a fitting and respectful tomb for a former king. Not a shrine, not a C21st version of a C15th tomb, but a dignified, respectful marker for his grave. And that is what he will have.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
That must be why the 'cathedral' backtracked so quickly when they first announced they were only giving him a floor slab then...
Unfortunately it's rather obvious that the 'cathedral' (including the frankly ludicrous, hobo dean) is completely out of its depth. It's quite embarrassing to watch them all flailing around when they clearly don't have a clue between them.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the reinterment was accompanied by the dulcet sounds of guitar and tambourine as the audience sway to a quick rendition of 'Kumbaya'.
That must be why the 'cathedral' backtracked so quickly when they first announced they were only giving him a floor slab then...
Unfortunately it's rather obvious that the 'cathedral' (including the frankly ludicrous, hobo dean) is completely out of its depth. It's quite embarrassing to watch them all flailing around when they clearly don't have a clue between them.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the reinterment was accompanied by the dulcet sounds of guitar and tambourine as the audience sway to a quick rendition of 'Kumbaya'.
Ugh!
Very fitting, folk masses were all the rage in the Catholic Church in the late sixties. They were very popular as well.
Unfortunately it's rather obvious that the 'cathedral' (including the frankly ludicrous, hobo dean) is completely out of its depth. It's quite embarrassing to watch them all flailing around when they clearly don't have a clue between them.
Sorry, but surely this kind of language is nothing but trolling designed only to get a reaction.
That must be why the 'cathedral' backtracked so quickly when they first announced they were only giving him a floor slab then...
Unfortunately it's rather obvious that the 'cathedral' (including the frankly ludicrous, hobo dean) is completely out of its depth. It's quite embarrassing to watch them all flailing around when they clearly don't have a clue between them.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the reinterment was accompanied by the dulcet sounds of guitar and tambourine as the audience sway to a quick rendition of 'Kumbaya'.
Ugh!
When in doubt, resort to personal insults - how terribly grown up.
So you accept that it really wouldn't have been his "place of choice".
I think that, as King, had he died an old man in his bed he might well have chosen to be buried in Westminster or Windsor - it would have been down to those who came after him to decide if his wishes were granted.
However, that wasn't his story. His story took him to Leicestershire and Bosworth and that's where he was buried and that's where he will be reinterred.
For the record, though, I think that once he became king, any choice of burial would have been in London. Not Yorkshire. Probably not Leicester either, although I wouldn't have been too surprised if he'd chosen somewhere in the Midlands. But those are all 'if he'd lived a longer life and died in his bed' type situations. And they're all irrelevant because he was buried in Leicester and will be reinterred there again. Under the same roof timbers are the Greyfriars first buried him in 1485 and in a coffin made by a C21st descendant of one of his siblings. I think he'll be ok.
ETA: I do find it quite amusing that 88% of the people who have voted on the Leicester Mercury poll re. whether they liked the tomb design or not have voted 'No' Nothing like keeping the locals on side...
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
It's very similar to the hypocrisy of those who are quite happy to accept the circumstantial evidence for Richard's plans to be buried in York, but who refuse to accept the 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them not to do so
The point is though, it doesn't really matter that Leicester may not have been his place of choice. That is where his story took him and that is where the Law has decreed he will stay.
And it's also irrelevant whether the online poll results in 88% liking or disliking the tomb design or not. The aim of this hasn't been to 'keep the locals on side' if you read the Cathedral's comments. It has been to provide a fitting and respectful tomb for a former king. Not a shrine, not a C21st version of a C15th tomb, but a dignified, respectful marker for his grave. And that is what he will have.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
I am fairly sure most locals arent bothered in the slightest.
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
I agree. Given the botch job that is the design, I don't think it's surprising at all that people don't like it.
I think that, as King, had he died an old man in his bed he might well have chosen to be buried in Westminster or Windsor - it would have been down to those who came after him to decide if his wishes were granted.
However, that wasn't his story. His story took him to Leicestershire and Bosworth and that's where he was buried and that's where he will be reinterred.
For the record, though, I think that once he became king, any choice of burial would have been in London. Not Yorkshire. Probably not Leicester either, although I wouldn't have been too surprised if he'd chosen somewhere in the Midlands. But those are all 'if he'd lived a longer life and died in his bed' type situations. And they're all irrelevant because he was buried in Leicester and will be reinterred there again. Under the same roof timbers are the Greyfriars first buried him in 1485 and in a coffin made by a C21st descendant of one of his siblings. I think he'll be ok.
I agree absolutely and these have always been my reasons for supporting a Leicester reinterment.
It takes me back to my visit years ago and to a conversation I overheard in Peterborough cathedral (on one of those rather turgid guided tours).
We'd stopped by the tomb of Catherine of Aragon and were left to our own devices for five minutes (while the desiccated old guide went to walk off a cramp - I kid you not!)
Cue an interesting conversation between a mother and daughter, which went along the lines of:
"Who's that?"
"Catherine of Aragon, she was the Queen of England"
"Like the Queen now?"
"No she was a different kind of Queen, she was married to the king"
"Is he in there too?"
"No"
"Where's he then?"
"I don't know. In London somewhere"
"Why isn't he in there if he was the king and she was the queen?"
"Because he found he didn't want her anymore and wanted someone else, so he parted from her"
"That wasn't very nice "
"No but that's what happened, and because he didn't want her anymore, he had the power to send her away and live far away from London and near here. And when she died they buried her here. And she's been here ever since."
And though that was quite a simplistic account given to a child, it speaks quite eloquently of why people's remains are where they are, and why there are important historical reasons for keeping them there, especially when the remains are as significant and iconic as a king's.
King Richard's story took him to Leicester, to his demise, and to his laying to rest at the greyfriars' church. I find this historically significant.
One day a child might well be taken to the cathedral and ask her parent
"Why is King Richard here, and not with the Queen in Westminster?"
And hopefully the answer given will be comprehensive and will bring history tangibly present and alive for her as she looks at the tomb at the centre of that building.
[
Originally Posted by Thibault
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
QUOTE=Kapellmeister;73269742]I agree. Given the botch job that is the design, I don't think it's surprising at all that people don't like it.[/QUOTE]
You have misinterpreted my point - the people drumming up support for a no vote are not concerned with the design itself, they are still angry at the decision to rebury Richard in Leicester and are using the poll as a stick to beat Leicester Cathedral with.
You have misinterpreted my point - the people drumming up support for a no vote are not concerned with the design itself, they are still angry at the decision to rebury Richard in Leicester and are using the poll as a stick to beat Leicester Cathedral with.
We've seen this throughout the debate.
The unremitting finding of fault has nothing really to do with the objects of complaint.
It's to do with not wanting Richard III in Leicester at all.
Leicester cathedral could have planned the most elaborate tomb and ceremony possible, and these people would still moan because they are determined to be unimpressed. It's like a child having a sulk.
On the matter of the planned table tomb, I can't say I'm pleased with it - I like the granite base/plinth, especially those angled corners, but the top part seems to lack something.
On the matter of the planned table tomb, I can't say I'm pleased with it - I like the granite base/plinth, especially those angled corners, but the top part seems to lack something.
I think that once it's in situ, with the light from the stained glass windows warming the stone, it will come to life - from what I've read elsewhere, the deep groove is designed to literally 'flood' with light and so, I suppose that at certain times, the stone will almost glow! It has every chance of looking absolutely amazing
[
Originally Posted by Thibault
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
QUOTE=Kapellmeister;73269742]I agree. Given the botch job that is the design, I don't think it's surprising at all that people don't like it.
You have misinterpreted my point - the people drumming up support for a no vote are not concerned with the design itself, they are still angry at the decision to rebury Richard in Leicester and are using the poll as a stick to beat Leicester Cathedral with.[/QUOTE]
Your point was very clear - Any misinterpretation was by design I think and to further push home a different point entirely ;-)
Your point was very clear - Any misinterpretation was by design I think and to further push home a different point entirely ;-)
And yet some people on here who were gagging for a Leicester reburial have themselves said that they don't like the design. To dismiss the poll results as nothing more than angry Ricardians venting their anger and hatred is more than a little silly.
And yet some people on here who were gagging for a Leicester reburial have themselves said that they don't like the design. To dismiss the poll results as nothing more than angry Ricardians venting their anger and hatred is more than a little silly.
Then how do you account for the exhortations on the various pro-York sites for people to vote against the design to show their contempt for Leicester and all contained within it? Some even mentioned having multiple addresses so that they could vote a number of times.
Comments
Your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion that was being had, as evidenced by you ignoring the rest of my post and as you have continued to go off at complete tangents for most of this thread I shall not dignify your latest "yes" "no" ultimatum with a response. If I was playing your game however, I could rephrase the question and ask if there was any evidence that he didn't?;-)
BIB. For the umpteenth time!!!! There is no direct incontrovertible evidence of his "known wishes" only circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in several ways as pointed out by numerous other posters throughout this thread and within the past couple of days.
Good one.
Technically incorrect as Graham Chapman was the Leicester Python, not John Clees.
I'm merely pointing out the rather blatant hypocrisy of those who gnash their teeth about the lack of 'evidence' for Richard III's proposed burial at Westminster or York but quite happily accept the lack of 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them to do so.
The onus isn't on someone to prove a negative.
Is there even any circumstantial evidence that he would've wished to be buried in a Leicester parish church? At least the York Minister option has some evidence in its favour in that regard. Leicester has nothing.
ETA: I do find it quite amusing that 88% of the people who have voted on the Leicester Mercury poll re. whether they liked the tomb design or not have voted 'No'
It's very similar to the hypocrisy of those who are quite happy to accept the circumstantial evidence for Richard's plans to be buried in York, but who refuse to accept the 'evidence' for a Catholic funeral in 1485 because, of course, it suits them not to do so
The point is though, it doesn't really matter that Leicester may not have been his place of choice. That is where his story took him and that is where the Law has decreed he will stay.
And it's also irrelevant whether the online poll results in 88% liking or disliking the tomb design or not. The aim of this hasn't been to 'keep the locals on side' if you read the Cathedral's comments. It has been to provide a fitting and respectful tomb for a former king. Not a shrine, not a C21st version of a C15th tomb, but a dignified, respectful marker for his grave. And that is what he will have.
The tomb will stand by a stained glass window which will flood it with light. I think it will look beautiful.
It matter not one jot that some people will choose not to visit, or mock the design - because that's the design the Cathedral are going to go ahead with.
Very well put:)
That must be why the 'cathedral' backtracked so quickly when they first announced they were only giving him a floor slab then...
Unfortunately it's rather obvious that the 'cathedral' (including the frankly ludicrous, hobo dean) is completely out of its depth. It's quite embarrassing to watch them all flailing around when they clearly don't have a clue between them.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the reinterment was accompanied by the dulcet sounds of guitar and tambourine as the audience sway to a quick rendition of 'Kumbaya'.
Ugh!
So you accept that it really wouldn't have been his "place of choice".
Very fitting, folk masses were all the rage in the Catholic Church in the late sixties. They were very popular as well.
Sorry, but surely this kind of language is nothing but trolling designed only to get a reaction.
When in doubt, resort to personal insults - how terribly grown up.
I think that, as King, had he died an old man in his bed he might well have chosen to be buried in Westminster or Windsor - it would have been down to those who came after him to decide if his wishes were granted.
However, that wasn't his story. His story took him to Leicestershire and Bosworth and that's where he was buried and that's where he will be reinterred.
For the record, though, I think that once he became king, any choice of burial would have been in London. Not Yorkshire. Probably not Leicester either, although I wouldn't have been too surprised if he'd chosen somewhere in the Midlands. But those are all 'if he'd lived a longer life and died in his bed' type situations. And they're all irrelevant because he was buried in Leicester and will be reinterred there again. Under the same roof timbers are the Greyfriars first buried him in 1485 and in a coffin made by a C21st descendant of one of his siblings. I think he'll be ok.
It's my opinion. If you choose to react to it then that is your business.
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
I am fairly sure most locals arent bothered in the slightest.
I agree. Given the botch job that is the design, I don't think it's surprising at all that people don't like it.
I agree absolutely and these have always been my reasons for supporting a Leicester reinterment.
It takes me back to my visit years ago and to a conversation I overheard in Peterborough cathedral (on one of those rather turgid guided tours).
We'd stopped by the tomb of Catherine of Aragon and were left to our own devices for five minutes (while the desiccated old guide went to walk off a cramp - I kid you not!)
Cue an interesting conversation between a mother and daughter, which went along the lines of:
"Who's that?"
"Catherine of Aragon, she was the Queen of England"
"Like the Queen now?"
"No she was a different kind of Queen, she was married to the king"
"Is he in there too?"
"No"
"Where's he then?"
"I don't know. In London somewhere"
"Why isn't he in there if he was the king and she was the queen?"
"Because he found he didn't want her anymore and wanted someone else, so he parted from her"
"That wasn't very nice
"No but that's what happened, and because he didn't want her anymore, he had the power to send her away and live far away from London and near here. And when she died they buried her here. And she's been here ever since."
And though that was quite a simplistic account given to a child, it speaks quite eloquently of why people's remains are where they are, and why there are important historical reasons for keeping them there, especially when the remains are as significant and iconic as a king's.
King Richard's story took him to Leicester, to his demise, and to his laying to rest at the greyfriars' church. I find this historically significant.
One day a child might well be taken to the cathedral and ask her parent
"Why is King Richard here, and not with the Queen in Westminster?"
And hopefully the answer given will be comprehensive and will bring history tangibly present and alive for her as she looks at the tomb at the centre of that building.
Originally Posted by Thibault
I am sure you are aware that the poll is open to all and not just the people of Leicester and the pro-York brigade have been drumming up support for a no vote. So the result so far is hardly surprising.
QUOTE=Kapellmeister;73269742]I agree. Given the botch job that is the design, I don't think it's surprising at all that people don't like it.[/QUOTE]
You have misinterpreted my point - the people drumming up support for a no vote are not concerned with the design itself, they are still angry at the decision to rebury Richard in Leicester and are using the poll as a stick to beat Leicester Cathedral with.
We've seen this throughout the debate.
The unremitting finding of fault has nothing really to do with the objects of complaint.
It's to do with not wanting Richard III in Leicester at all.
Leicester cathedral could have planned the most elaborate tomb and ceremony possible, and these people would still moan because they are determined to be unimpressed. It's like a child having a sulk.
On the matter of the planned table tomb, I can't say I'm pleased with it - I like the granite base/plinth, especially those angled corners, but the top part seems to lack something.
I think that once it's in situ, with the light from the stained glass windows warming the stone, it will come to life - from what I've read elsewhere, the deep groove is designed to literally 'flood' with light and so, I suppose that at certain times, the stone will almost glow! It has every chance of looking absolutely amazing
You have misinterpreted my point - the people drumming up support for a no vote are not concerned with the design itself, they are still angry at the decision to rebury Richard in Leicester and are using the poll as a stick to beat Leicester Cathedral with.[/QUOTE]
Your point was very clear - Any misinterpretation was by design I think and to further push home a different point entirely ;-)
And yet some people on here who were gagging for a Leicester reburial have themselves said that they don't like the design. To dismiss the poll results as nothing more than angry Ricardians venting their anger and hatred is more than a little silly.
Then how do you account for the exhortations on the various pro-York sites for people to vote against the design to show their contempt for Leicester and all contained within it? Some even mentioned having multiple addresses so that they could vote a number of times.