I guess it depends how much of a monarchist one is, and whether one believes in the blue blood and all that.
I quite like the idea of King Richard's tomb being the dominant feature of Leicester cathedral, sited in the crossing/presbytery area.
The building is altogether more humble than some of the others suggested, but at least he'll be the focal point there, and not shoved in some corner, crammed between the 28th Earl of Borsetshire and the vestry door or something.
The idea that one of our grand cathedrals is a more fitting resting place for a monarch has been well and truly outed as a non-starter - it's simply not the English tradition, and York, Durham etc just bury their own (Bishops, Deans etc) within their domains. Your example of Catherine of Aragon at Peterborough succinctly points up that R3 is just the most illustrious of the historical waifs and strays who, for political reasons or the vagaries of the location of their usually violent death, weren't buried at Westminster or Windsor. There is a precedent for burial at those latter two, but none at all for the rest, not even York Minster.
St Martins is what it is, and though it's a long way down my list of favourite Leicester churches, from my parochial viewpoint its fittings and monuments give a fine history of Leicester's civic and military life over the last 500 years. As Richard III nestles in next year, his story - and especially the King in the Car Park and the excellence of the science which solved the mystery - will fit in very nicely with the town's unfolding tale.
Wilfully describing a building which has been a Cathedral since 1927 as a 'parish church' shows perhaps the thinness of your argument - name calling is something one finds in the playground and not in reasoned debate, surely.
Oh come now. As architecture, if nothing else, it's a second rate parish church. And the 'archaeological practice' is to rebury in the nearest consecrated ground, is it not? Therefore isn't it irrelevant if the wee church is a 'cathedral' or not? It's where Richard III would've ended up anyway.
The idea that one of our grand cathedrals is a more fitting resting place for a monarch has been well and truly outed as a non-starter - it's simply not the English tradition, and York, Durham etc just bury their own (Bishops, Deans etc) within their domains. Your example of Catherine of Aragon at Peterborough succinctly points up that R3 is just the most illustrious of the historical waifs and strays who, for political reasons or the vagaries of the location of their usually violent death, weren't buried at Westminster or Windsor. There is a precedent for burial at those latter two, but none at all for the rest, not even York Minster.
St Martins is what it is, and though it's a long way down my list of favourite Leicester churches, from my parochial viewpoint its fittings and monuments give a fine history of Leicester's civic and military life over the last 500 years. As Richard III nestles in next year, his story - and especially the King in the Car Park and the excellence of the science which solved the mystery - will fit in very nicely with the town's unfolding tale.
What is the 'English tradition'?
Also, can you tell me why Katherine of Aragon wasn't buried in the parish church at Kimbolton but was lugged over 30 miles away to the abbey at Peterborough?
And "a long way down your list of Leicester churches".? How many are on this list for the 'cathedral' to feature so low??
Oh come now. As architecture, if nothing else, it's a second rate parish church. And the 'archaeological practice' is to rebury in the nearest consecrated ground, is it not? Therefore isn't it irrelevant if the wee church is a 'cathedral' or not? It's where Richard III would've ended up anyway.
Wriggle, wriggle - whether you like it or not St Martin's IS a Cathedral. Putting the word in quotes every time you use it does nothing to help your case.......
Wriggle, wriggle - whether you like it or not St Martin's IS a Cathedral. Putting the word in quotes every time you use it does nothing to help your case.......
It's the Bishop of Leicester's main church (how embarrassing for him!) but most people would easily mistake it for a Victorian parish church of zero consequence.
It's the Bishop of Leicester's main church (how embarrassing for him!) but most people would easily mistake it for a Victorian parish church of zero consequence.
You are such a snob LOL! You should have chosen Mrs Bucket as your username
You are such a snob LOL! You should have chosen Mrs Bucket as your username
So were the medieval kings. Why did Henry VII build himself a vast chapel and tomb at Westminster instead of being interred under a slab at Richmond parish church?
No English monarch has ever been buried in a former parish church. As I said before, why the hell should Richard III slum it in Leicester 'cathedral' when there are vastly more suitable locations with vastly more suitable buildings.
The tradition of not burying monarchs in provincial cathedrals
Also, can you tell me why Katherine of Aragon wasn't buried in the parish church at Kimbolton but was lugged over 30 miles away to the abbey at Peterborough?
No, but I would hazard a guess that it was wrapped up in Henry VIII's contemporaneous problems with the soon-to-be-executed Anne Boleyn.
And "a long way down your list of Leicester churches".? How many are on this list for the 'cathedral' to feature so low??
About 20. St Martin's was hovering around 11/12th but will definitely be top 5 when his nibs is in place.
My current Top 3 are:
1. St Nicholas: our Saxon church, the church of the University of Leicester and postulated as the seat of the original bishopric in the 7th century.
2. The Jain Temple: stunning confection in white marble, in a building once a Congregational Chapel, and adjacent to the site of the Annunciation church where R3's body was placed on its return from Bosworth. And no animals were harmed during the building of it
3. The Great Meeting. The Unitarian Chapel of 1708, oddly almost Colonial American in style and a great inspiration and reminder of the strong character and non-conformism of Leicester through the centuries. Incidentally, Sir Peter Soulsby is one of the elders of that church. I'm sure he'd make you most welcome. ^_^
So were the medieval kings. Why did Henry VII build himself a vast chapel and tomb at Westminster instead of being interred under a slab at Richmond parish church?
No English monarch has ever been buried in a former parish church. As I said before, why the hell should Richard III slum it in Leicester 'cathedral' when there are vastly more suitable locations with vastly more suitable buildings.
Cos it'll be good for his soul?
Nothing unsuitable about being buried in the House of God and, as I said further up the thread, as far as God is concerned his Houses are all as good as each other. Richard won't be 'slumming' it, as you so charmingly and delicately phrase it - he will be in the bosom of his Maker. If you believe that sort of thing.
The tradition of not burying monarchs in provincial cathedrals
No, but I would hazard a guess that it was wrapped up in Henry VIII's contemporaneous problems with the soon-to-be-executed Anne Boleyn.
About 20. St Martin's was hovering around 11/12th but will definitely be top 5 when his nibs is in place.
My current Top 3 are:
1. St Nicholas: our Saxon church, the church of the University of Leicester and postulated as the seat of the original bishopric in the 7th century.
2. The Jain Temple: stunning confection in white marble, in a building once a Congregational Chapel, and adjacent to the site of the Annunciation church where R3's body was placed on its return from Bosworth. And no animals were harmed during the building of it
3. The Great Meeting. The Unitarian Chapel of 1708, oddly almost Colonial American in style and a great inspiration and reminder of the strong character and non-conformism of Leicester through the centuries. Incidentally, Sir Peter Soulsby is one of the elders of that church. I'm sure he'd make you most welcome. ^_^
Non Conformist chapels are amongst my favourite buildings. My ancestors saw Wesley preach (in fact he preached in one of their farmhouses) and subsequently went on to build a substantial # of the early methodist chapels in East Yorkshire. Including one in the village where I now live. Sadly, almost all of these are now being lived in as people's homes, or stand empty. I do like a bit of 18thC elegance.
C of E, though.... A nice, tasteful, restrained yet not-at-all-ancient cathedral is Birmingham Cathedral - like Leicester, it wasn't a particularly prominent place in the history of these islands (til the Industrial Revolution when it became almost the centre of the universe!) and they turned St Philip's parish church in the city centre into a cathedral. Although small by medieval standards, it makes a very convincing cathedral. But then there's a lot to be said for 18thC tastes - not much for 19th.:D Leeds and Huddersfield also have not great Victorian rebuilds as cathedrals, but both are considerably more impressive inside, it has to be said, than poor Leicester.
Birmingham only became a "cathedral" in the 20thC, too, yet it convinces as a "cathedral" utterly. (You'd have thought the older St Martins in the Bullring would make a more obvious cathedral, too - they must have chosen St Philip's as it was in a fancier location in the city centre).
No, but I would hazard a guess that it was wrapped up in Henry VIII's contemporaneous problems with the soon-to-be-executed Anne Boleyn.
Hardly. It would've been easier to stuff her in the parish church at Kimbolton, but then no English monarch or consort has ever been unfortunate enough to end up in a parish church, former or otherwise (until now that is). Obviously the reason she wasn't buried there was simply because it wasn't commensurate with her status as a former queen of England.
The great abbeys, cathedrals and minsters of England have always been the repositories for the remains of the country's monarch. Whether it was Glastonsbury, Winchester or Westminster Abbey.
Why wasn't Edward II buried at Berkeley parish church? I wonder...
Nothing unsuitable about being buried in the House of God and, as I said further up the thread, as far as God is concerned his Houses are all as good as each other. Richard won't be 'slumming' it, as you so charmingly and delicately phrase it - he will be in the bosom of his Maker. If you believe that sort of thing.
Perhaps. There certainly seems to be an implied element of 'punishment for past sins' by having a reinterment in such a mediocre setting. What could be more humiliating for a former king of England than being buried inside a former parish church under a Brutalist block of stone in the very city where he was paraded after death.
Perhaps. There certainly seems to be an implied element of 'punishment for past sins' by having a reinterment in such a mediocre setting. What could be more humiliating for a former king of England than being buried inside a former parish church under a Brutalist block of stone in the very city where he was paraded after death.
How on earth can it be humiliating? He has been dead for over 500 years! He will be buried in consecrated ground and, being the pious type that he was, he'd not demand more than that I'm sure.
How on earth can it be humiliating? He has been dead for over 500 years! He will be buried in consecrated ground and, being the pious type that he was, he'd not demand more than that I'm sure.
So why wasn't Edward II buried in Berkeley parish church, or Henry VII in Richmond parish church or Katherine of Aragon in Kimbolton parish church? Why was Henry VI moved and reburied at St George's Chapel in Windsor? Why did King John request to be buried at Worcester cathedral even though he died miles away at Lynn? Why did James I move the remains of Mary, Queen of Scots from Peterborough to Westminster Abbey?
The idea that the status of these buildings somehow 'don't matter' is deluded and goes completely against the historical record. Why shouldn't Richard III be moved too to somewhere commensurate with his own status? It is inconceivable that any generation except our own would've been happy for him to be re-interred in such a mediocre structure.
. Why shouldn't Richard III be moved too to somewhere commensurate with his own status? It is inconceivable that any generation except our own would've been happy for him to be re-interred in such a mediocre structure.
So why wasn't Edward II buried in Berkeley parish church, or Henry VII in Richmond parish church or Katherine of Aragon in Kimbolton parish church? Why was Henry VI moved and reburied at St George's Chapel in Windsor? Why did King John request to be buried at Worcester cathedral even though he died miles away at Lynn? Why did James I move the remains of Mary, Queen of Scots from Peterborough to Westminster Abbey?
The idea that the status of these buildings somehow 'don't matter' is deluded and goes completely against the historical record. Why shouldn't Richard III be moved too to somewhere commensurate with his own status? It is inconceivable that any generation except our own would've been happy for him to be re-interred in such a mediocre structure.
Our view of monarchy has changed. Previous kings / queens have been removed and reinterred by other kings / queens, full of their own view and belief that kings and queens were somehow different. They're not. Society doesn't really believe that anymore. As I've said before - one House of God is as good as the next one - the amount of twiddly bits are for the living and were there to impress the living, not God. God doesn't care about twiddly bits.
So why wasn't Edward II buried in Berkeley parish church, or Henry VII in Richmond parish church or Katherine of Aragon in Kimbolton parish church? Why was Henry VI moved and reburied at St George's Chapel in Windsor? Why did King John request to be buried at Worcester cathedral even though he died miles away at Lynn? Why did James I move the remains of Mary, Queen of Scots from Peterborough to Westminster Abbey?
The idea that the status of these buildings somehow 'don't matter' is deluded and goes completely against the historical record. Why shouldn't Richard III be moved too to somewhere commensurate with his own status? It is inconceivable that any generation except our own would've been happy for him to be re-interred in such a mediocre structure.
True. But... the re-interment was always going to say more about us as a culture, than it was ever going to say about 15thC England. We're not spiritual; we're venal, have no real sense of our selves anymore, we're crass, more interested in the bottom line, etc etc. So maybe it is very apposite as it does indeed say more about us to stick him there, than do what was done with other kings killed in battle - move them to a place that mattered to them in life (whether their wishes were overt, or not)... His case is particularly bad, because of what was done to his remains by people in Leicestershire (notice I said 'in not 'of'). But that says more about us, that we'd disregard that - and as the pro-Leicester people here have said, their county has become part of the story, if a rather ugly part.
If I was a christian and believed in a construct like 'the soul', I'd think that he's long gone from those remains anyway. As I'm not a christian, I don't believe in the soul but feel anyone who wants to know about Richard will learn nothing from a visit to the church (whether it's a laughable Victorian heap, or a spectacular cathedral is immaterial) and everything from spending time in places like York or Middleham, that meant something to him in life.
Hardly. It would've been easier to stuff her in the parish church at Kimbolton, but then no English monarch or consort has ever been unfortunate enough to end up in a parish church, former or otherwise (until now that is). Obviously the reason she wasn't buried there was simply because it wasn't commensurate with her status as a former queen of England.
The great abbeys, cathedrals and minsters of England have always been the repositories for the remains of the country's monarch. Whether it was Glastonsbury, Winchester or Westminster Abbey.
Why wasn't Edward II buried at Berkeley parish church? I wonder...
Please don't take this as meaning I give a flying f**k about your parish church obsession, but I don't see this works as neither Peterborough nor Gloucester were cathedrals when their own regal waifs and strays pitched up there for burial. So little old Leicester Cathedral seems to have a pedigree that they lacked, not least because Leicester had also been an Anglo-Saxon bishopric which neither of the other two managed.
Non Conformist chapels are amongst my favourite buildings. My ancestors saw Wesley preach (in fact he preached in one of their farmhouses) and subsequently went on to build a substantial # of the early methodist chapels in East Yorkshire. Including one in the village where I now live. Sadly, almost all of these are now being lived in as people's homes, or stand empty. I do like a bit of 18thC elegance.
Very much so. The non-conformist meeting house type buildings do seem ideal for des res conversions. It's probably the villages that suffer, cosmopolitan Leicester has a tendency to recycle them, we even have a Serbian Orthodox church in an ancient (St George's) church, and many others have enjoyed "inter-faith transfers". A friend of mine bought an old Ebenezer (Primitive) Methodist chapel for next to nothing, to house his printed circuit board business, and when I visited him I could sit in the gallery and look down on the staff busy soldering away in what had been the nave!
C of E, though.... A nice, tasteful, restrained yet not-at-all-ancient cathedral is Birmingham Cathedral - like Leicester, it wasn't a particularly prominent place in the history of these islands (til the Industrial Revolution when it became almost the centre of the universe!) and they turned St Philip's parish church in the city centre into a cathedral. Although small by medieval standards, it makes a very convincing cathedral. But then there's a lot to be said for 18thC tastes - not much for 19th.:D Leeds and Huddersfield also have not great Victorian rebuilds as cathedrals, but both are considerably more impressive inside, it has to be said, than poor Leicester.
Birmingham? Former parish church? Small? But wait, Burne Jones stained glass windows gets my vote.
True. But... the re-interment was always going to say more about us as a culture, than it was ever going to say about 15thC England. We're not spiritual; we're venal, have no real sense of our selves anymore, we're crass, more interested in the bottom line, etc etc. So maybe it is very apposite as it does indeed say more about us to stick him there, than do what was done with other kings killed in battle - move them to a place that mattered to them in life (whether their wishes were overt, or not)... His case is particularly bad, because of what was done to his remains by people in Leicestershire (notice I said 'in not 'of'). But that says more about us, that we'd disregard that - and as the pro-Leicester people here have said, their county has become part of the story, if a rather ugly part.
If I was a christian and believed in a construct like 'the soul', I'd think that he's long gone from those remains anyway. As I'm not a christian, I don't believe in the soul but feel anyone who wants to know about Richard will learn nothing from a visit to the church (whether it's a laughable Victorian heap, or a spectacular cathedral is immaterial) and everything from spending time in places like York or Middleham, that meant something to him in life.
I couldn't agree more. Now you put it like that it's easier to see the whole thing as nothing more than a modern aberration and indictment on our current culture.
When he died he was the King of England, specifically 'Dei Gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae' ('by the grace of god, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland'). But hey, let's stick him in the nearest consecrated ground i.e. a parish church.
When he died he was the King of England, specifically 'Dei Gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae' ('by the grace of god, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland'). But hey, let's stick him in the nearest consecrated ground i.e. a parish church.
And what was his status when he was originally buried?
Comments
The idea that one of our grand cathedrals is a more fitting resting place for a monarch has been well and truly outed as a non-starter - it's simply not the English tradition, and York, Durham etc just bury their own (Bishops, Deans etc) within their domains. Your example of Catherine of Aragon at Peterborough succinctly points up that R3 is just the most illustrious of the historical waifs and strays who, for political reasons or the vagaries of the location of their usually violent death, weren't buried at Westminster or Windsor. There is a precedent for burial at those latter two, but none at all for the rest, not even York Minster.
St Martins is what it is, and though it's a long way down my list of favourite Leicester churches, from my parochial viewpoint its fittings and monuments give a fine history of Leicester's civic and military life over the last 500 years. As Richard III nestles in next year, his story - and especially the King in the Car Park and the excellence of the science which solved the mystery - will fit in very nicely with the town's unfolding tale.
Oh come now. As architecture, if nothing else, it's a second rate parish church. And the 'archaeological practice' is to rebury in the nearest consecrated ground, is it not? Therefore isn't it irrelevant if the wee church is a 'cathedral' or not? It's where Richard III would've ended up anyway.
What is the 'English tradition'?
Also, can you tell me why Katherine of Aragon wasn't buried in the parish church at Kimbolton but was lugged over 30 miles away to the abbey at Peterborough?
And "a long way down your list of Leicester churches".? How many are on this list for the 'cathedral' to feature so low??
Wriggle, wriggle - whether you like it or not St Martin's IS a Cathedral. Putting the word in quotes every time you use it does nothing to help your case.......
It's the Bishop of Leicester's main church (how embarrassing for him!) but most people would easily mistake it for a Victorian parish church of zero consequence.
You are such a snob LOL! You should have chosen Mrs Bucket as your username
So were the medieval kings. Why did Henry VII build himself a vast chapel and tomb at Westminster instead of being interred under a slab at Richmond parish church?
No English monarch has ever been buried in a former parish church. As I said before, why the hell should Richard III slum it in Leicester 'cathedral' when there are vastly more suitable locations with vastly more suitable buildings.
The tradition of not burying monarchs in provincial cathedrals
No, but I would hazard a guess that it was wrapped up in Henry VIII's contemporaneous problems with the soon-to-be-executed Anne Boleyn.
About 20. St Martin's was hovering around 11/12th but will definitely be top 5 when his nibs is in place.
My current Top 3 are:
1. St Nicholas: our Saxon church, the church of the University of Leicester and postulated as the seat of the original bishopric in the 7th century.
2. The Jain Temple: stunning confection in white marble, in a building once a Congregational Chapel, and adjacent to the site of the Annunciation church where R3's body was placed on its return from Bosworth. And no animals were harmed during the building of it
3. The Great Meeting. The Unitarian Chapel of 1708, oddly almost Colonial American in style and a great inspiration and reminder of the strong character and non-conformism of Leicester through the centuries. Incidentally, Sir Peter Soulsby is one of the elders of that church. I'm sure he'd make you most welcome. ^_^
Cos it'll be good for his soul?
Nothing unsuitable about being buried in the House of God and, as I said further up the thread, as far as God is concerned his Houses are all as good as each other. Richard won't be 'slumming' it, as you so charmingly and delicately phrase it - he will be in the bosom of his Maker. If you believe that sort of thing.
C of E, though.... A nice, tasteful, restrained yet not-at-all-ancient cathedral is Birmingham Cathedral - like Leicester, it wasn't a particularly prominent place in the history of these islands (til the Industrial Revolution when it became almost the centre of the universe!) and they turned St Philip's parish church in the city centre into a cathedral. Although small by medieval standards, it makes a very convincing cathedral. But then there's a lot to be said for 18thC tastes - not much for 19th.:D Leeds and Huddersfield also have not great Victorian rebuilds as cathedrals, but both are considerably more impressive inside, it has to be said, than poor Leicester.
Birmingham only became a "cathedral" in the 20thC, too, yet it convinces as a "cathedral" utterly. (You'd have thought the older St Martins in the Bullring would make a more obvious cathedral, too - they must have chosen St Philip's as it was in a fancier location in the city centre).
Hardly. It would've been easier to stuff her in the parish church at Kimbolton, but then no English monarch or consort has ever been unfortunate enough to end up in a parish church, former or otherwise (until now that is). Obviously the reason she wasn't buried there was simply because it wasn't commensurate with her status as a former queen of England.
Let's have a look to compare shall we?
Kimbolton parish church - hmm...reminds me of something...
Peterborough cathedral - a fitting location for a queen of England
The great abbeys, cathedrals and minsters of England have always been the repositories for the remains of the country's monarch. Whether it was Glastonsbury, Winchester or Westminster Abbey.
Why wasn't Edward II buried at Berkeley parish church? I wonder...
St Mary's, Berkeley
Gloucester cathedral
Perhaps. There certainly seems to be an implied element of 'punishment for past sins' by having a reinterment in such a mediocre setting. What could be more humiliating for a former king of England than being buried inside a former parish church under a Brutalist block of stone in the very city where he was paraded after death.
How on earth can it be humiliating? He has been dead for over 500 years! He will be buried in consecrated ground and, being the pious type that he was, he'd not demand more than that I'm sure.
So why wasn't Edward II buried in Berkeley parish church, or Henry VII in Richmond parish church or Katherine of Aragon in Kimbolton parish church? Why was Henry VI moved and reburied at St George's Chapel in Windsor? Why did King John request to be buried at Worcester cathedral even though he died miles away at Lynn? Why did James I move the remains of Mary, Queen of Scots from Peterborough to Westminster Abbey?
The idea that the status of these buildings somehow 'don't matter' is deluded and goes completely against the historical record. Why shouldn't Richard III be moved too to somewhere commensurate with his own status? It is inconceivable that any generation except our own would've been happy for him to be re-interred in such a mediocre structure.
And what was Richard's status at death?
Our view of monarchy has changed. Previous kings / queens have been removed and reinterred by other kings / queens, full of their own view and belief that kings and queens were somehow different. They're not. Society doesn't really believe that anymore. As I've said before - one House of God is as good as the next one - the amount of twiddly bits are for the living and were there to impress the living, not God. God doesn't care about twiddly bits.
True. But... the re-interment was always going to say more about us as a culture, than it was ever going to say about 15thC England. We're not spiritual; we're venal, have no real sense of our selves anymore, we're crass, more interested in the bottom line, etc etc. So maybe it is very apposite as it does indeed say more about us to stick him there, than do what was done with other kings killed in battle - move them to a place that mattered to them in life (whether their wishes were overt, or not)... His case is particularly bad, because of what was done to his remains by people in Leicestershire (notice I said 'in not 'of'). But that says more about us, that we'd disregard that - and as the pro-Leicester people here have said, their county has become part of the story, if a rather ugly part.
If I was a christian and believed in a construct like 'the soul', I'd think that he's long gone from those remains anyway. As I'm not a christian, I don't believe in the soul but feel anyone who wants to know about Richard will learn nothing from a visit to the church (whether it's a laughable Victorian heap, or a spectacular cathedral is immaterial) and everything from spending time in places like York or Middleham, that meant something to him in life.
Please don't take this as meaning I give a flying f**k about your parish church obsession, but I don't see this works as neither Peterborough nor Gloucester were cathedrals when their own regal waifs and strays pitched up there for burial. So little old Leicester Cathedral seems to have a pedigree that they lacked, not least because Leicester had also been an Anglo-Saxon bishopric which neither of the other two managed.
Persona non equus?
Sadly, yes!
Very much so. The non-conformist meeting house type buildings do seem ideal for des res conversions. It's probably the villages that suffer, cosmopolitan Leicester has a tendency to recycle them, we even have a Serbian Orthodox church in an ancient (St George's) church, and many others have enjoyed "inter-faith transfers". A friend of mine bought an old Ebenezer (Primitive) Methodist chapel for next to nothing, to house his printed circuit board business, and when I visited him I could sit in the gallery and look down on the staff busy soldering away in what had been the nave!
Birmingham? Former parish church? Small? But wait, Burne Jones stained glass windows gets my vote.
I couldn't agree more. Now you put it like that it's easier to see the whole thing as nothing more than a modern aberration and indictment on our current culture.
When he died he was the King of England, specifically 'Dei Gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae' ('by the grace of god, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland'). But hey, let's stick him in the nearest consecrated ground i.e. a parish church.
And what was his status when he was originally buried?
That wasn't your original question...as you well know.