Is Leicester really a fitting resting place for Richard III?

12357237

Comments

  • TouristaTourista Posts: 14,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    York is where he should be buried.
  • soulboy77soulboy77 Posts: 24,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Verence wrote: »
    ...He had a curved spine not a hunchback
    I was going to suggest we bury him back in the car park under a speed hump! :)
  • allaboardallaboard Posts: 1,940
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Walkers crisps should commission a special Richard III flavoured crisp. It should have a bitter after taste, especially for the Yorkies!
  • Vodka_DrinkaVodka_Drinka Posts: 28,740
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The local Leicster paper has picked up on Yorks challenge.

    http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/York-launches-battle-Leicester-Richard-III-s/story-18059586-detail/story.html

    Some of the comments from local people are interesting. Especially the one stating that York isn't fit for a King because it floods a lot! Some people talk absolute drivel don't they?
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    BBC report on York's challenge

    A row has erupted between York and Leicester about which city has the right to bury Richard III's remains.

    There are calls for a Leicester Cathedral interment, close to where he was found.

    However King Richard grew up in North Yorkshire, and York City Council is writing to the Queen asking for permission to bury him at York Minster.


    Video
  • WinterFireWinterFire Posts: 9,509
    Forum Member
    The local Leicster paper has picked up on Yorks challenge.

    http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/York-launches-battle-Leicester-Richard-III-s/story-18059586-detail/story.html

    Some of the comments from local people are interesting. Especially the one stating that York isn't fit for a King because it floods a lot! Some people talk absolute drivel don't they?

    Actually I think a lot of the comments are quite sensible. But you ignore them, and pick up on one minor description, not presented in all seriousness.

    Also, you don't pick up on this:
    However, the exhumation licence issued by the Ministry of Justice states the remains should be buried in Leicester, and preparations for the body to be re-interred at Leicester Cathedral have already begun.

    That looks to be rather pertinent.
  • willow32willow32 Posts: 660
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    allaboard wrote: »
    The people in Leicester involved in the dig were clearly smart enough to have the legal paperwork prepared to their advantage. The Yorkies couldn't have been that bothered, or they would have got involved at that stage. Only now the hard work is done do they want to get in on the act. To late Yorkies, you snooze, you lose!!!

    I agree.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    The local Leicster paper has picked up on Yorks challenge.

    http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/York-launches-battle-Leicester-Richard-III-s/story-18059586-detail/story.html

    Some of the comments from local people are interesting. Especially the one stating that York isn't fit for a King because it floods a lot! Some people talk absolute drivel don't they?

    I thought the comments accusing York of being 'greedy' were hilarious too. The only reason Soulsby and his cronies want to keep the bones is out of sheer greed. To rebury Richard III in Leicester is utterly indefensible.

    As for the poor, sad people of Leicester, bemoaning the fact that they have no tourist attractions, well tough s**t. You chose to tear down your city. If it looks like a s**t-hole then you've only got yourselves to blame. You can't now whine that no-one wants to visit the cesspit. As Simon Jenkins says "Modern Leicester is dire". It's debatable whether it can even be called an 'English city' any more, and the idea that the last of the Plantagenets will be reinterred there is repulsive to me.

    I bet if there was a nationwide poll carried out then the vast majority of people would think it more suitable for Richard III to be buried in either York Minster or Westminster Abbey. Anything else would be a travesty, and the people of Leicester know it.
  • MadMoo40MadMoo40 Posts: 1,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Leicester needs something to be famous for so what an opportunity, however I fully agree with you that it should be either York Minster or Westminster Abbey, both places are fit for a King.

    As the suspected murderer of his young nephews, and perhaps his wife and even his brother - I think he should have been left in the car park.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A petition has recently been set up from people who want him reburied in York:

    https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38772/signature/new

    More information about York City Council's views can be found here:

    http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/886024/campaign-for-richard-iii-to-have-york-burial/

    Signed.
    If he wrote a will expressing a wish to be buried in York Minster that is where he should be buried.
    Leicester Cathedral wasn't even built when he was alive.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aly1 wrote: »
    Signed.
    If he wrote a will expressing a wish to be buried in York Minster that is where he should be buried.
    Leicester Cathedral wasn't even built when he was alive.

    Also signed.
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well - its been suitable for the last few hundred years.....
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MadMoo40 wrote: »
    As the suspected murderer of his young nephews, and perhaps his wife and even his brother - I think he should have been left in the car park.

    Here is hoping I never get you on my jury ;)
  • collitcollit Posts: 787
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought the comments accusing York of being 'greedy' were hilarious too. The only reason Soulsby and his cronies want to keep the bones is out of sheer greed. To rebury Richard III in Leicester is utterly indefensible.

    As for the poor, sad people of Leicester, bemoaning the fact that they have no tourist attractions, well tough s**t. You chose to tear down your city. If it looks like a s**t-hole then you've only got yourselves to blame. You can't now whine that no-one wants to visit the cesspit. As Simon Jenkins says "Modern Leicester is dire". It's debatable whether it can even be called an 'English city' any more, and the idea that the last of the Plantagenets will be reinterred there is repulsive to me.

    I bet if there was a nationwide poll carried out then the vast majority of people would think it more suitable for Richard III to be buried in either York Minster or Westminster Abbey. Anything else would be a travesty, and the people of Leicester know it.

    What a stupid man. Get over yourself. He's staying in Leicester, so tough s**t to you.
  • MadMoo40MadMoo40 Posts: 1,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moony wrote: »
    Here is hoping I never get you on my jury ;)

    Well, its hardly a secret that he was the main suspect - and the person who benefited most from their demise!
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Moony wrote: »
    Well - its been suitable for the last few hundred years.....

    And that is the only claim that Leicester can legitimately make. It's a rather pathetic excuse, IMO.
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MadMoo40 wrote: »
    Well, its hardly a secret that he was the main suspect - and the person who benefited most from their demise!

    Main suspect /= guilty.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    At one time you had to be born in yorkshire to play for them and they took on the world..the only county dide that did that i think..it lost a bit of the shine for me when they relaxed that rule..

    It's not an ancient rule though. Lord Hawke, an icon of Yorkshire cricket was born in Lincolnshire.
  • kochspostulateskochspostulates Posts: 3,067
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lizzy11268 wrote: »
    Ooh I hope it is up to me :D

    Have him buried near your house. Then you can open your gift shop and coffee stand for the tourists before everyone else gets the chance?
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And that is the only claim that Leicester can legitimately make. It's a rather pathetic excuse, IMO.

    What difference does it make really. If the Leicester university team hadnt bothered to investigate and dig - its likely he'd have remained in the carpark - nobody else over the past several hundred years seems to have been particularly bothered by his resting place.

    Something tells me that these other claims to his remains are being driven by £ signs - rather than any real concern over his resting place.
  • allaboardallaboard Posts: 1,940
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And that is the only claim that Leicester can legitimately make. It's a rather pathetic excuse, IMO.

    I think you'll find there is legal paperwork too. ;)
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Moony wrote: »
    What difference does it make really. If the Leicester university team hadnt bothered to investigate and dig - its likely he'd have remained in the carpark - nobody else over the past several hundred years seems to have been particularly bothered by his resting place.

    Something tells me that these other claims to his remains are being driven by £ signs - rather than any real concern over his resting place.

    Only Leicester is being driven by ££ signs, the city council especially. As has been pointed out on here, Leicester has nothing else to offer visitors and so they're desperate. That is hardly a good enough reason when, on principle, the remains should be returned to York or placed at Westminster Abbey.
  • JezRJezR Posts: 1,428
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    St Mary de Castro might be a more fitting place than the Cathedral - it was after all a royal chapel for Leicester Castle whereas St Martin's Church was for the Guild. However, it isn't the closest consecrated ground to the original burial.
  • MoonyMoony Posts: 15,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And that is the only claim that Leicester can legitimately make. It's a rather pathetic excuse, IMO.

    Well - acording to a recent article in the telegraph (01 feb) - identifiable remains are usually required by law to be buried in the nearest graveyard to their discovery.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    JezR wrote: »
    St Mary de Castro might be a more fitting place than the Cathedral - it was after all a royal chapel for Leicester Castle whereas St Martin's Church was for the Guild. However, it isn't the closest consecrated ground to the original burial.

    At least St Mary de Castro is significant as architecture but it's still a parish church. No English king should be buried in a parish church, which is all Leicester 'cathedral' really is.
Sign In or Register to comment.