I had a nice time generally down there and my little boy lives in Birstall, so he'll grow up there.
Like I say though, it's just quite an ordinary place. Nothing bad, nothing amazing. Our days out (me and the ex) were generally out of the county, with Derbyshire being a favourite, as well as places like Warwick and Stratford.
I know it's not strictly Leicestershire, but I used to love Rutland Water.
I had a nice time generally down there and my little boy lives in Birstall, so he'll grow up there.
Like I say though, it's just quite an ordinary place. Nothing bad, nothing amazing. Our days out (me and the ex) were generally out of the county, with Derbyshire being a favourite, as well as places like Warwick and Stratford.
I know it's not strictly Leicestershire, but I used to love Rutland Water.
Yep Rutland Water is very pretty as are many parts of Derbyshire- I work in Warwickshire and whilst I love Stratford, can never really see what all the fuss is about with Warwick, apart from the castle of course.
Yep Rutland Water is very pretty as are many parts of Derbyshire- I work in Warwickshire and whilst I love Stratford, can never really see what all the fuss is about with Warwick, apart from the castle of course.
Warwick - Castle, river, some historic streets.
Prefer Stratford though, and especially what lies beyond it (Cotswolds).
Why do you assume that I haven't read the judgement? Just because I don't agree with its findings?
I say it because you never referred to any passages from it (or quoted from it, though I suppose that may be down to qualms over copyright).
You keep banging on about 'consultation' without addressing the fact that three expert legal minds have told you that such a consultation would be impossible.
Specifically tell us how they are flawed in their understanding then. Take to task the specific part of the judgement that focuses on this issue.
I'm not referring to consulting a few bodies in Leicester, and the church and royals, I'm referring to full public consultation, which could easily be carried out by an independent company employed for the task.
Classic example of apparent ignorance of the JR judgement that told you that this was not possible.
He had already begun building a huge chantry chapel at the Minster, with four altars, and plans for 100 priests. It has long been held by historical experts on these things, that this meant he intended York Minster to be his final resting place.
As his wife and son both died long before the chantry would have been completed, their burial locations had to be elsewhere. Again, experts suggest that the reason their two graves were unmarked (something which was unusual for someone who loved them as much as Richard is known to have done), then the likelihood is that he intended to move them to York, once the chantry was complete.
But then you know all of this already, as it has been discussed in this thread several times. There's more than enough circumstantial evidence to strongly suggest that he wanted to be buried in York.
This has been discussed before you're right, and I only bring it up because you've been passing off 'suggestions' and 'circumstance' as facts once more.
You still don't know, do you. You are assuming, based on your interpretation of suggestion.
Yes. Why do you keep assuming that I haven't, just because I disagree with its findings? Repeatedly levelling this accusation at me, won't change my opinion.
No I know, but then we know what sort of whack-a-doodle conspiracies and 'other sources' that inform certain opinions so I'm not surprised.
Perhaps revisiting the judgement with a more objective mindset might help.
The judges could've, and should've, set up an independent panel. There are several articles that have appeared since the review findings, that claim that the decision is flawed. I will post them when I find them again.
They had no right to set one up, and found no legal requirement for setting one up by someone else.
I have just found this thread. Very interesting to read some of the views.
It is fascinating how during the course of the dispute over where Richard III should be reburied, the fact that he, as king, ordered work on a large chantry at York Minster (as he had done in other places associated with his family, albeit not so large) has become the absolute concrete certainty that he wished to be buried there. There is absolutely no record of where Richard wished to be buried. His will has disappeared and there's nothing else.
All we have are 'inferred wishes' based on the size of the chantry.
Well, it's possible to have other inferred assumptions about that chantry - for example it may simply have been a political statement. He was king of England and would now have to be based in the south of the country. He had worked hard to turn York from a Lancastrian city into a Yorkist one, so perhaps the chantry was to remind the good citizens of York of his time there and thus retain their Yorkist loyalty in the years ahead when he lived somewhere else.
His wife was buried in Westminster Abbey and we have no record of where his son was buried. But neither of them were buried in York Minster.
It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have a memorial window to Richard put in the Minster. On that basis, if they were to have the reburial, it would take them around 50 years to do it.
IHis wife was buried in Westminster Abbey and we have no record of where his son was buried. But neither of them were buried in York Minster.
It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have a memorial window to Richard put in the Minster. On that basis, if they were to have the reburial, it would take them around 50 years to do it.
I thought his son was in Sheriff Hutton?
You do get the distinct impression York would be late for its own funeral, let alone the King's.
You do get the distinct impression York would be late for its own funeral, let alone the King's.
+ everything the minster has said has indicates strongly that they don't want the remains there.
The PA really are in a pickle with this one, trying to get the right to inter stripped away from a place where state, monarchy, church and judiciary say it should be, and to force it upon a place that has made clear it isn't interested.
Hogzilla has been saying this for nearly a year now.
BTW does anyone know why Cadiva stopped posting? Would have been interesting to hear what she had to say re. the JR.
You do get the distinct impression York would be late for its own funeral, let alone the King's.
Re Sheriff Hutton - the tomb there is generally considered now to be too early to be Edward's, based on the style of the effigy (clothing etc) - I think they now think it's one of the Nevilles
I assume, because nothing has been heard from them, that the PA have decided not to appeal.
There is an interesting question regarding the PA. When they set up their organisation, they began appealing for funds to launch their challenge. As late as a few weeks ago, they were still fund-raising. We know from the JR decision that they have been protected from paying costs - and their lawyers acted pro bono.
My question is - so, what have they done with the money raised? It doesn't seem to have been used for legal fees/costs.
I assume, because nothing has been heard from them, that the PA have decided not to appeal.
There is an interesting question regarding the PA. When they set up their organisation, they began appealing for funds to launch their challenge. As late as a few weeks ago, they were still fund-raising. We know from the JR decision that they have been protected from paying costs - and their lawyers acted pro bono.
My question is - so, what have they done with the money raised? It doesn't seem to have been used for legal fees/costs.
I was thinking the same thing last week, no idea how much they raised though. Would be interesting to know.
Because you keep restating things that have been adequately and expertly addressed by the High Court such as your point below about the public consultation without saying why you disagree with the judgement. You haven't referred to any of the legal arguments as WinterFire pointed out above. You also post links to bizarre and delusional facebook pages which means that despite your knowledge of the subject you are treated as seriously as your merry little band of fantasists on the "Leicester is an evil Cabal blah blah blah page".
You've read the judgement yourself, so you have already seen the legal arguments. Why would I need to keep repeating them? I've had to repeat myself so often in this thread, that I'm sick of doing so.
I don't agree with the judges ruling, and I don't agree with your interpretation of proceedings. Under ordinary circumstances, yes, but these aren't ordinary circumstances, and Mr. Haddon-Cave admitted that when he granted the review. If there were no valid legal arguments, then he wouldn't have granted the review in the first place. Under these unique circumstances, the judges had the option of setting a legal precedent (again admitted by Haddon-Cave early on, as already discussed here, if I recall correctly). Full consultation was an option, as part of that precedent, and it is always going to be my opinion that it should've happened, whether you thinking I'm explaining my view to your satisfaction or not.
I will state why I disagree with the judgement, as clearly as I can. It's because Richard's known wishes were ignored. They are all that should matter. As a former King of England, this is a national matter, not a local one, and there is no law governing what to do if a former King's remains are discovered. Therefore, the law as it stands is in unknown territory, and almost any interpretation can be put on legal matters, depending on individual judge's opinions. Just because at least two of the three judges in this case agreed with the license, doesn't mean that all judges would also agree. And it doesn't mean that those who made this judgement are right - judges are only human, just like the rest of us. And the law certainly isn't infallible.
I didn't post the 'Leicester Cabal Hang Your Heads In Shame' Facebook page, and have only seen it briefly. I know of it, but there are many Facebook pages about the campaign. I post on only three of them, two which are private and not viewable to the public.
Why do you call people fantasists because they question the 'official' version of events, and want to get at the full truth?
The fact that these private consulations took place before the dig was even fully under way, and before Richard's remains were formally identified, means that the public were cut off from having an opinion, even before most people knew that there was something to have an opinion on.
Private consultation proves that consultation was possible. And as a national matter, they had no moral right to cut the public out. As Leicester has been pointing out for the last two years, Richard was the King of England, not just one particular place.
I don't doubt that the reason full consultation was dismissed, is because it was very quickly made apparent that most people wouldn't support Leicester's claim to rebury.
Not according to the High Court Judgement- unless you are saying that their information is incorrect. Are you privy to more of your infamous "inside information", which you have claimed on a number of occasions but are never able to substantiate
I post anything that I am in a position to post - I cannot post anything that I don't have permission to post, so whether or not you believe my posts are unsubstantiated, is up to you. I'm merely telling you what I have learned.
Errmm -was that a question that I had to answer because I wouldn't even begin to dignify it with a response? It may have had a question mark but I assumed it was rhetorical.
So you're not going to answer it? I honestly didn't think you would, as it undermines your argument as to how much respect the people of Leicester have always had for Richard.
Still no direct evidence such as a will for example
Henry Tudor destoyed most of Richard's documents, and as it is inconceivable that he didn't make a will, it too is likely to have been destroyed. There's plenty if other circumstantial evidence, such as his gifts to York and the Minster, his favouring the city a number of times, his having his son invested as Prince of Wales there, his second coronation, his role as Lord of the North, the fact that he chose to have his family in Yorkshire, and stayed there for most of his life, his referring to his vists to York as his 'home coming', his honouring the fallen at Towton, paying for essential repairs at the Minster, etc. Plenty to show a strong connection to the city and the county. Just because there's no surviving written will (as far as we know), doesn't mean that there's no evidence. There's more in the Rous Roll, and the fabric rolls at York Minster.
The majority of historians who are knowledable about his life, have determined that the most likely place he wanted to be buried was York Minster, and that the chantry was ample evidence of this. No matter how much you try, insisting that there's no proof of his wishes won't disprove what is most likely.
You keep banging on about 'consultation' without addressing the fact that three expert legal minds have told you that such a consultation would be impossible.
Specifically tell us how they are flawed in their understanding then. Take to task the specific part of the judgement that focuses on this issue.
Given that these are unique circumstances, and the law wasn't designed to cover this type of situation, then a precedent should have, and could have been set. Consultation is not impossible, no matter how much you (or anyone else) insist it is. Legal opinions on this differ, depending on who you talk to.
As far as I'm concerned, the flaws come in refusing to recognise that this is not an 'unknown person', or an ordinary situation, and applying rules that do not take into account such a unique situation, when there is no precedent for this. Mr. Haddon-Cave himself said it was unprecedented when he granted the review.
There are online blogs from other legal experts, who describe other flaws, if you'd care to look for them.
This has been discussed before you're right, and I only bring it up because you've been passing off 'suggestions' and 'circumstance' as facts once more.
You still don't know, do you. You are assuming, based on your interpretation of suggestion.
No, I'm basing my opinion on historical information, and expert advice from people who have studied Richard's life in greater depth than I have. His connections to the north, and known inferred wishes are well documented. Your refusal to accept this doesn't disprove anything.
All we have are 'inferred wishes' based on the size of the chantry.
Well, it's possible to have other inferred assumptions about that chantry - for example it may simply have been a political statement. He was king of England and would now have to be based in the south of the country. He had worked hard to turn York from a Lancastrian city into a Yorkist one, so perhaps the chantry was to remind the good citizens of York of his time there and thus retain their Yorkist loyalty in the years ahead when he lived somewhere else.
Not just on the chantry, but on his many and lengthy documented connections with Yorkshire, and the city of York.
Even though he had to be based in the capital as King, he returned to the north as often as he could, and there were rumours that he was going to make York his capital. Unofficially, it already was. There would've been no need to remind the citizens of York anything, they loved him already, and that feeling remains strong today.
His wife was buried in Westminster Abbey and we have no record of where his son was buried. But neither of them were buried in York Minster.
It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have a memorial window to Richard put in the Minster. On that basis, if they were to have the reburial, it would take them around 50 years to do it.
The reason it took so long to make the change in the window, was the same reason it takes a long time to do anything in a building like the Minster - you can't make changes quickly, inexpensively, and without official permission to do so, changes take a huge amount of red tape to get approved, let alone done.
And it's not known exactly where Edward of Middleham is buried, but the belief is that it's either at Sherrif Hutton, or yes, in the Minster.
+ everything the minster has said has indicates strongly that they don't want the remains there.
The PA really are in a pickle with this one, trying to get the right to inter stripped away from a place where state, monarchy, church and judiciary say it should be, and to force it upon a place that has made clear it isn't interested.
If the decision was taken to move Richard to York, the Minster chapter wouldn't refuse. I have a letter to this effect in reply to a letter I wrote to them last year. They stated that they would co-operate with whatever the decision would be. So in the event of Richard being returned to Yorkshire, they would co-operate with that.
I assume, because nothing has been heard from them, that the PA have decided not to appeal.
There is an interesting question regarding the PA. When they set up their organisation, they began appealing for funds to launch their challenge. As late as a few weeks ago, they were still fund-raising. We know from the JR decision that they have been protected from paying costs - and their lawyers acted pro bono.
My question is - so, what have they done with the money raised? It doesn't seem to have been used for legal fees/costs.
They stopped the fund-raising page the same day that the decision was made known to them, several days before it was made public. The money raised will still go on court costs, which were capped at £70,000.
DPS - you keep referring to Richard's known wishes. Show me the source material where it is categorically stated what his wishes in relation to his burial are.
You are correct - his will was destroyed. That would have contained his wishes with regard to his burial place, just like his mother's will stipulates hers. But there is no other record.
He did not have a second coronation in York - he had a crown-wearing ceremony. There is no doubt that Richard had a long association with Yorkshire. Had he lived and died as the king's viceroy in the north, it is probable he would have been buried there.
However he became king - not king of the north, but king of England. Most English monarchs were buried in London or relatively close to London. Richard had a strong northern affinity. He weakness was a lack of a southern affinity. What do you think the effect on the south would have been if Richard had decided that he, his wife and his heirs would be buried hundreds of miles away from the capital? What sort of a message would that have sent?
It seems that Richard said a fond goodbye to Yorkshire when he became king. He made a special point of having his son created Prince of Wales in York and he and the queen wore their crowns. A great gesture to thank the people of Yorkshire for their support over the years. He gave orders for a large chantry to continue to remind the locals of his former relationship with them But it doesn't mean he wished to be buried there.
DPS - you keep referring to Richard's known wishes. Show me the source material where it is categorically stated what his wishes in relation to his burial are.
You are correct - his will was destroyed. That would have contained his wishes with regard to his burial place, just like his mother's will stipulates hers. But there is no other record.
He did not have a second coronation in York - he had a crown-wearing ceremony. There is no doubt that Richard had a long association with Yorkshire. Had he lived and died as the king's viceroy in the north, it is probable he would have been buried there.
However he became king - not king of the north, but king of England. Most English monarchs were buried in London or relatively close to London. Richard had a strong northern affinity. He weakness was a lack of a southern affinity. What do you think the effect on the south would have been if Richard had decided that he, his wife and his heirs would be buried hundreds of miles away from the capital? What sort of a message would that have sent?
It seems that Richard said a fond goodbye to Yorkshire when he became king. He made a special point of having his son created Prince of Wales in York and he and the queen wore their crowns. A great gesture to thank the people of Yorkshire for their support over the years. He gave orders for a large chantry to continue to remind the locals of his former relationship with them But it doesn't mean he wished to be buried there.
I agree. He buried his wife at the abbey and may (perhaps) have wished to have been buried there with her among the other kings.
However I'm not claiming this is a fact, just something that may be true or may not.
This is what DPS can't seem to understand, the difference between verifiable facts and interpretations based on 'inference' and 'suggestion' <---- her own words.
I will state why I disagree with the judgement, as clearly as I can. It's because Richard's known wishes were ignored. .
His wishes aren't known.
Just because at least two of the three judges in this case agreed with the license, doesn't mean that all judges would also agree. And it doesn't mean that those who made this judgement are right - judges are only human, just like the rest of us. And the law certainly isn't infallible.
Ah so you've somehow divined now that there was disagreement between the judges after they scrutinized the evidence. More guff from the mysterious 'sources'?
If the decision was taken to move Richard to York, the Minster chapter wouldn't refuse. I have a letter to this effect in reply to a letter I wrote to them last year. They stated that they would co-operate with whatever the decision would be. So in the event of Richard being returned to Yorkshire, they would co-operate with that.
Oh the wouldn't refuse, no. But there's a world of difference in expressing an enthusiastic wish, and 'co-operating' with an order imposed from elsewhere.
He did not have a second coronation in York - he had a crown-wearing ceremony. There is no doubt that Richard had a long association with Yorkshire. Had he lived and died as the king's viceroy in the north, it is probable he would have been buried there.
However he became king - not king of the north, but king of England. Most English monarchs were buried in London or relatively close to London. Richard had a strong northern affinity. He weakness was a lack of a southern affinity. What do you think the effect on the south would have been if Richard had decided that he, his wife and his heirs would be buried hundreds of miles away from the capital? What sort of a message would that have sent?
It seems that Richard said a fond goodbye to Yorkshire when he became king. He made a special point of having his son created Prince of Wales in York and he and the queen wore their crowns. A great gesture to thank the people of Yorkshire for their support over the years. He gave orders for a large chantry to continue to remind the locals of his former relationship with them But it doesn't mean he wished to be buried there.
I "infer" that as his son was in the final stages of consumption, the deed (being anointed PoW) having to be done quickly for all sorts of reasons, had to be performed in a place to which his son could be brought without dying en route.
I don't particularly associate his actions (as opposed to his fancifully assumed "wishes") as anything more than those of a tyrant with a track record of murdering and summarily executing his opponents and former associates. Keeping a base "sweet" is fairly normal prudent behaviour for a psychopath who needs to continually operate at a level of extreme violence . You only have to look at the modus operandi of Saddam Hussein over 30 years, the nearest contemporary comparison to your run-of-the-mill Lancastrian or Yorkist despot, to be very dubious about a rose-tinted interpretation of life in 15th century Yorkshire.
I "infer" that as his son was in the final stages of consumption, the deed (being anointed PoW) having to be done quickly for all sorts of reasons, had to be performed in a place to which his son could be brought without dying en route.
I don't particularly associate his actions (as opposed to his fancifully assumed "wishes") as anything more than those of a tyrant with a track record of murdering and summarily executing his opponents and former associates. Keeping a base "sweet" is fairly normal prudent behaviour for a psychopath who needs to continually operate at a level of extreme violence . You only have to look at the modus operandi of Saddam Hussein over 30 years, the nearest contemporary comparison to your run-of-the-mill Lancastrian or Yorkist despot, to be very dubious about a rose-tinted interpretation of life in 15th century Yorkshire.
So if he was a 'tyrant' and 'psychopath' - why did half of Leicester supposedly name their kids after him? And why do you want his body there? If you really believed that - then you should probably stick him on the next freight train up North. What happened to all the sentimental nonsense about Midlanders taking him to their hearts post-death? Tripped yourself up there.:)
It also begs the question - do you want Peter Sutcliffe when he's pushing up the daisies? Might complete the collection. No? That's odd...Go on! Have him! You like other counties' psychopaths.
So if he was a 'tyrant' and 'psychopath' - why did half of Leicester supposedly name their kids after him? And why do you want his body there? If you really believed that - then you should probably stick him on the next freight train up North. What happened to all the sentimental nonsense about Midlanders taking him to their hearts post-death? Tripped yourself up there.:)
It also begs the question - do you want Peter Sutcliffe when he's pushing up the daisies? Might complete the collection. No? That's odd...Go on! Have him! You like other counties' psychopaths.
I expect there are people in Leicester who revere the old king, and others who think he's an nepoticidal wrong 'un!
And ditto people in York.
This is where this whole discourse becomes absurd i.e. when we have folk saying "Leicester thinks....." and "York thinks....", as if all people in one particular urban area share an uniform collective opinion.
So if he was a 'tyrant' and 'psychopath' - why did half of Leicester supposedly name their kids after him? And why do you want his body there? If you really believed that - then you should probably stick him on the next freight train up North. What happened to all the sentimental nonsense about Midlanders taking him to their hearts post-death? Tripped yourself up there.:)
It also begs the question - do you want Peter Sutcliffe when he's pushing up the daisies? Might complete the collection. No? That's odd...Go on! Have him! You like other counties' psychopaths.
I expect there are people in Leicester who revere the old king, and others who think he's an nepoticidal wrong 'un!
And ditto people in York.
This is where this whole discourse becomes absurd i.e. when we have folk saying "Leicester thinks....." and "York thinks....", as if all people in one particular urban area share an uniform collective opinion.
Touche! I was just riffing against the saccharine sweet nonsense about R3, whose vigorous, ruthless and verifiable acts are at some variance from romanticized inferences so woefully presented as the case for a York burial. As for Leicester, well we managed to name a university after a notorious anti-semite, and a fair proportion of the county cheerfully carry on chasing down foxes in blatant defiance of the Hunting Act, so maybe we are comfortable at continuing to give house room to a king-killer and naming our children after him - it's been his home for 529 years.
The begged question I would have asked would be could we have Edward of Middleham, as many Ricardians set great store by a family reunion.... but he's gone AWOL, apparently.
Touche! I was just riffing against the saccharine sweet nonsense about R3, whose vigorous, ruthless and verifiable acts are at some variance from romanticized inferences so woefully presented as the case for a York burial. As for Leicester, well we managed to name a university after a notorious anti-semite, and a fair proportion of the county cheerfully carry on chasing down foxes in blatant defiance of the Hunting Act, so maybe we are comfortable at continuing to give house room to a king-killer and naming our children after him - it's been his home for 529 years.
The begged question I would have asked would be could we have Edward of Middleham, as many Ricardians set great store by a family reunion.... but he's gone AWOL, apparently.
I agree with you re. the ambiguous reputation of RIII.
It's impossible to know for sure whether he was the ogre of Shakespeare's plays or the misunderstood leader who stepped into the breach.
The answer probably lies in the middle somewhere. I don't believe he was the monster of Tudor propaganda but he was a medieval king, and likely pretty ruthless as they all were.
The way some people go on you'd think he was a candidate for being canonized; I prefer a more prosaic interpretation.
The black plinth at the base is an improvement. Alas, the 'gift-wrapped coffin' on top remains the same, and that was always the worst part of the design.
The black plinth at the base is an improvement. Alas, the 'gift-wrapped coffin' on top remains the same, and that was always the worst part of the design.
It's an embarrassment.
I believe this thread has established it will be a gift-wrapped ossuary, with a little door in it.
Comments
I had a nice time generally down there and my little boy lives in Birstall, so he'll grow up there.
Like I say though, it's just quite an ordinary place. Nothing bad, nothing amazing. Our days out (me and the ex) were generally out of the county, with Derbyshire being a favourite, as well as places like Warwick and Stratford.
I know it's not strictly Leicestershire, but I used to love Rutland Water.
Yep Rutland Water is very pretty as are many parts of Derbyshire- I work in Warwickshire and whilst I love Stratford, can never really see what all the fuss is about with Warwick, apart from the castle of course.
Appeal to Court of Appeal has to be lodged within 14 days of JR decision, so yep I think that means today is the last day!!!
Warwick - Castle, river, some historic streets.
Prefer Stratford though, and especially what lies beyond it (Cotswolds).
I say it because you never referred to any passages from it (or quoted from it, though I suppose that may be down to qualms over copyright).
You keep banging on about 'consultation' without addressing the fact that three expert legal minds have told you that such a consultation would be impossible.
Specifically tell us how they are flawed in their understanding then. Take to task the specific part of the judgement that focuses on this issue.
Classic example of apparent ignorance of the JR judgement that told you that this was not possible.
This has been discussed before you're right, and I only bring it up because you've been passing off 'suggestions' and 'circumstance' as facts once more.
You still don't know, do you. You are assuming, based on your interpretation of suggestion.
No I know, but then we know what sort of whack-a-doodle conspiracies and 'other sources' that inform certain opinions so I'm not surprised.
Perhaps revisiting the judgement with a more objective mindset might help.
They had no right to set one up, and found no legal requirement for setting one up by someone else.
It is fascinating how during the course of the dispute over where Richard III should be reburied, the fact that he, as king, ordered work on a large chantry at York Minster (as he had done in other places associated with his family, albeit not so large) has become the absolute concrete certainty that he wished to be buried there. There is absolutely no record of where Richard wished to be buried. His will has disappeared and there's nothing else.
All we have are 'inferred wishes' based on the size of the chantry.
Well, it's possible to have other inferred assumptions about that chantry - for example it may simply have been a political statement. He was king of England and would now have to be based in the south of the country. He had worked hard to turn York from a Lancastrian city into a Yorkist one, so perhaps the chantry was to remind the good citizens of York of his time there and thus retain their Yorkist loyalty in the years ahead when he lived somewhere else.
His wife was buried in Westminster Abbey and we have no record of where his son was buried. But neither of them were buried in York Minster.
It took York Minster 15 years to agree to have a memorial window to Richard put in the Minster. On that basis, if they were to have the reburial, it would take them around 50 years to do it.
I thought his son was in Sheriff Hutton?
You do get the distinct impression York would be late for its own funeral, let alone the King's.
+ everything the minster has said has indicates strongly that they don't want the remains there.
The PA really are in a pickle with this one, trying to get the right to inter stripped away from a place where state, monarchy, church and judiciary say it should be, and to force it upon a place that has made clear it isn't interested.
Hogzilla has been saying this for nearly a year now.
BTW does anyone know why Cadiva stopped posting? Would have been interesting to hear what she had to say re. the JR.
Re Sheriff Hutton - the tomb there is generally considered now to be too early to be Edward's, based on the style of the effigy (clothing etc) - I think they now think it's one of the Nevilles
Re York - I recall Philippa Langley saying, right at the outset, that York had taken 15 years to agree to a window and she didn't want Richard's remains sitting round in a box for years, while they decided where to put him! See this from October 2012! http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
There is an interesting question regarding the PA. When they set up their organisation, they began appealing for funds to launch their challenge. As late as a few weeks ago, they were still fund-raising. We know from the JR decision that they have been protected from paying costs - and their lawyers acted pro bono.
My question is - so, what have they done with the money raised? It doesn't seem to have been used for legal fees/costs.
I was thinking the same thing last week, no idea how much they raised though. Would be interesting to know.
I guess there were travel costs to court etc.
You've read the judgement yourself, so you have already seen the legal arguments. Why would I need to keep repeating them? I've had to repeat myself so often in this thread, that I'm sick of doing so.
I don't agree with the judges ruling, and I don't agree with your interpretation of proceedings. Under ordinary circumstances, yes, but these aren't ordinary circumstances, and Mr. Haddon-Cave admitted that when he granted the review. If there were no valid legal arguments, then he wouldn't have granted the review in the first place. Under these unique circumstances, the judges had the option of setting a legal precedent (again admitted by Haddon-Cave early on, as already discussed here, if I recall correctly). Full consultation was an option, as part of that precedent, and it is always going to be my opinion that it should've happened, whether you thinking I'm explaining my view to your satisfaction or not.
I will state why I disagree with the judgement, as clearly as I can. It's because Richard's known wishes were ignored. They are all that should matter. As a former King of England, this is a national matter, not a local one, and there is no law governing what to do if a former King's remains are discovered. Therefore, the law as it stands is in unknown territory, and almost any interpretation can be put on legal matters, depending on individual judge's opinions. Just because at least two of the three judges in this case agreed with the license, doesn't mean that all judges would also agree. And it doesn't mean that those who made this judgement are right - judges are only human, just like the rest of us. And the law certainly isn't infallible.
I didn't post the 'Leicester Cabal Hang Your Heads In Shame' Facebook page, and have only seen it briefly. I know of it, but there are many Facebook pages about the campaign. I post on only three of them, two which are private and not viewable to the public.
Why do you call people fantasists because they question the 'official' version of events, and want to get at the full truth?
Private consultation proves that consultation was possible. And as a national matter, they had no moral right to cut the public out. As Leicester has been pointing out for the last two years, Richard was the King of England, not just one particular place.
I don't doubt that the reason full consultation was dismissed, is because it was very quickly made apparent that most people wouldn't support Leicester's claim to rebury.
I post anything that I am in a position to post - I cannot post anything that I don't have permission to post, so whether or not you believe my posts are unsubstantiated, is up to you. I'm merely telling you what I have learned.
So you're not going to answer it? I honestly didn't think you would, as it undermines your argument as to how much respect the people of Leicester have always had for Richard.
Henry Tudor destoyed most of Richard's documents, and as it is inconceivable that he didn't make a will, it too is likely to have been destroyed. There's plenty if other circumstantial evidence, such as his gifts to York and the Minster, his favouring the city a number of times, his having his son invested as Prince of Wales there, his second coronation, his role as Lord of the North, the fact that he chose to have his family in Yorkshire, and stayed there for most of his life, his referring to his vists to York as his 'home coming', his honouring the fallen at Towton, paying for essential repairs at the Minster, etc. Plenty to show a strong connection to the city and the county. Just because there's no surviving written will (as far as we know), doesn't mean that there's no evidence. There's more in the Rous Roll, and the fabric rolls at York Minster.
The majority of historians who are knowledable about his life, have determined that the most likely place he wanted to be buried was York Minster, and that the chantry was ample evidence of this. No matter how much you try, insisting that there's no proof of his wishes won't disprove what is most likely.
The PA are very quiet at the moment, I will post as soon as there's any further news.
Given that these are unique circumstances, and the law wasn't designed to cover this type of situation, then a precedent should have, and could have been set. Consultation is not impossible, no matter how much you (or anyone else) insist it is. Legal opinions on this differ, depending on who you talk to.
As far as I'm concerned, the flaws come in refusing to recognise that this is not an 'unknown person', or an ordinary situation, and applying rules that do not take into account such a unique situation, when there is no precedent for this. Mr. Haddon-Cave himself said it was unprecedented when he granted the review.
There are online blogs from other legal experts, who describe other flaws, if you'd care to look for them.
No, I'm basing my opinion on historical information, and expert advice from people who have studied Richard's life in greater depth than I have. His connections to the north, and known inferred wishes are well documented. Your refusal to accept this doesn't disprove anything.
Not just on the chantry, but on his many and lengthy documented connections with Yorkshire, and the city of York.
Even though he had to be based in the capital as King, he returned to the north as often as he could, and there were rumours that he was going to make York his capital. Unofficially, it already was. There would've been no need to remind the citizens of York anything, they loved him already, and that feeling remains strong today.
The reason it took so long to make the change in the window, was the same reason it takes a long time to do anything in a building like the Minster - you can't make changes quickly, inexpensively, and without official permission to do so, changes take a huge amount of red tape to get approved, let alone done.
And it's not known exactly where Edward of Middleham is buried, but the belief is that it's either at Sherrif Hutton, or yes, in the Minster.
If the decision was taken to move Richard to York, the Minster chapter wouldn't refuse. I have a letter to this effect in reply to a letter I wrote to them last year. They stated that they would co-operate with whatever the decision would be. So in the event of Richard being returned to Yorkshire, they would co-operate with that.
They stopped the fund-raising page the same day that the decision was made known to them, several days before it was made public. The money raised will still go on court costs, which were capped at £70,000.
You are correct - his will was destroyed. That would have contained his wishes with regard to his burial place, just like his mother's will stipulates hers. But there is no other record.
He did not have a second coronation in York - he had a crown-wearing ceremony. There is no doubt that Richard had a long association with Yorkshire. Had he lived and died as the king's viceroy in the north, it is probable he would have been buried there.
However he became king - not king of the north, but king of England. Most English monarchs were buried in London or relatively close to London. Richard had a strong northern affinity. He weakness was a lack of a southern affinity. What do you think the effect on the south would have been if Richard had decided that he, his wife and his heirs would be buried hundreds of miles away from the capital? What sort of a message would that have sent?
It seems that Richard said a fond goodbye to Yorkshire when he became king. He made a special point of having his son created Prince of Wales in York and he and the queen wore their crowns. A great gesture to thank the people of Yorkshire for their support over the years. He gave orders for a large chantry to continue to remind the locals of his former relationship with them But it doesn't mean he wished to be buried there.
I agree. He buried his wife at the abbey and may (perhaps) have wished to have been buried there with her among the other kings.
However I'm not claiming this is a fact, just something that may be true or may not.
This is what DPS can't seem to understand, the difference between verifiable facts and interpretations based on 'inference' and 'suggestion' <---- her own words.
His wishes aren't known.
Ah so you've somehow divined now that there was disagreement between the judges after they scrutinized the evidence. More guff from the mysterious 'sources'?
Oh the wouldn't refuse, no. But there's a world of difference in expressing an enthusiastic wish, and 'co-operating' with an order imposed from elsewhere.
I "infer" that as his son was in the final stages of consumption, the deed (being anointed PoW) having to be done quickly for all sorts of reasons, had to be performed in a place to which his son could be brought without dying en route.
I don't particularly associate his actions (as opposed to his fancifully assumed "wishes") as anything more than those of a tyrant with a track record of murdering and summarily executing his opponents and former associates. Keeping a base "sweet" is fairly normal prudent behaviour for a psychopath who needs to continually operate at a level of extreme violence . You only have to look at the modus operandi of Saddam Hussein over 30 years, the nearest contemporary comparison to your run-of-the-mill Lancastrian or Yorkist despot, to be very dubious about a rose-tinted interpretation of life in 15th century Yorkshire.
It also begs the question - do you want Peter Sutcliffe when he's pushing up the daisies? Might complete the collection. No? That's odd...Go on! Have him! You like other counties' psychopaths.
I expect there are people in Leicester who revere the old king, and others who think he's an nepoticidal wrong 'un!
And ditto people in York.
This is where this whole discourse becomes absurd i.e. when we have folk saying "Leicester thinks....." and "York thinks....", as if all people in one particular urban area share an uniform collective opinion.
Touche!
The begged question I would have asked would be could we have Edward of Middleham, as many Ricardians set great store by a family reunion.... but he's gone AWOL, apparently.
I agree with you re. the ambiguous reputation of RIII.
It's impossible to know for sure whether he was the ogre of Shakespeare's plays or the misunderstood leader who stepped into the breach.
The answer probably lies in the middle somewhere. I don't believe he was the monster of Tudor propaganda but he was a medieval king, and likely pretty ruthless as they all were.
The way some people go on you'd think he was a candidate for being canonized; I prefer a more prosaic interpretation.
Yet again you are mixing up your wishfull thinking with fact. Known wishes, for goodness sake!
Please stop stating your unfounded beliefs as fact.
I thought they we're going back to the drawing board, apparently not.
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Final-tomb-design-revealed/story-21243145-detail/story.html
The black plinth at the base is an improvement. Alas, the 'gift-wrapped coffin' on top remains the same, and that was always the worst part of the design.
It's an embarrassment.
I believe this thread has established it will be a gift-wrapped ossuary, with a little door in it.