I very much doubt it, you've already decided what you want to believe..
A highly selective albeit well-reasoned argument but too little, too late, I'm afraid. Pity the pro-York campaign concentrated on wholesale denigration of anything connected with Leicester past and present, and absurd overblown claims for the flimsy and circumstantial (aka "inferred") tissue of fabrications and half-truths supporting their case.
Ploughing this furrow always avoids the big hole in the inference game, that if Richard entertained the possibility of losing at Bosworth and being killed, the then king would have the right to determine where and how Richard would be buried, and that his successor 500+ years later saw no reason to overrule this.
Exactly as I've said repeatedly in this thread, and been mocked for. Time will tell. Why do I get insulted for saying this, but it's okay for others to say the same thing?
I don't know which group you're referring to, I only frequent two of the private ones. But this is something that these private groups have been saying to the campaigners for the past two years.
Evidence has been given over and over in this thread, and every time, you or one of the other Leicester supporters ridicule or ignore it. The evidence is plentiful, and yes, the chantry is at the centre of it. Actions speak louder than words, and Richard's actions in building the chantry, paying for 100 priests, choosing York as his capital, and focusing on the north for most of his life, speak volumes.
But it is not evidence - it is an inferred assumption based on the fact that the chantry was ordered. But, as evidence from the will of Earl Rivers shows, people order chantries in many churches and are not buried in any of them. Rivers mentions four chantries in his will but chooses a fifth church (without a chantry) as the place for his burial. Richard himself created chantries in a number of places associated with him and/or his family.
But you will never accept this, even though the majority of experts and historians also say the same things. You've chosen to believe that Leicester is the correct place to bury him, and will never be willing to even consider that you might be wrong. So there's nothing I can say to you that you'll believe, as you've already branded me a liar because you don't want to believe me, or admit that Leicester isn't the right place to bury Richard.
I could equally say the same thing about your POV - you do not for a moment accept that you could be wrong.
It is not 'a majority of experts and historians' as you put it, but only some of them and they only infer it - Richard's will has been lost and there is no other evidence of his wishes.
What you choose to believe is up to you, you're entitled to your opinion. But most of those who know Richard's life and character well, know that his intention was to be buried in York Minster, and there's nothing you can do to change the evidence. Only continue to refute it because you want him to be buried in Leicester.
There you go again - there is absolutely no concrete evidence. We do not know what Richard's intentions were. There is no written evidence. There are also many other people who have studied Richard's life and times who do not support your case.
If you won't accept it from me, would you accept it from Dr. David Johnson of the Looking For Richard Project?
I have read David and Wendy's stuff. It is their opinion based on inferred assumptions.
I very much doubt it, you've already decided what you want to believe.
The chantry wasn't completed. How could he have moved his wife and son to be buried in a building that hadn't yet been built? Only the foundations and six altars were complete at the time of his death, and Henry Tudor demolished those.
Yes, but at the time of Anne's death, Richard was very much alive and no doubt intended to remain so. However, Anne was buried in Westminster Abbey and there is absolutely no evidence or contemporary source who states that her interment was temporary.
Both burials were clearly temporary, as there were no tombs, no permanent markers - the tomb that Edward is believed to have been buried in, was originally built for another child. Full honours refer to ceremony and service, not necessarily to the physical burial itself. But you have already decided not to believe it, and will refute everything I say. So there's no point in having the same argument yet again.
No knows where Edward of Middleham is buried. The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is the wrong period and is empty.
If you want to know more about the evidence, then I suggest that you re-read this thread.
I am very familiar with both sides of the argument.
By the way, I haven't called you a liar. I merely take issue with your constantly stating as FACT something which is merely the opinion of some - ie that Richard intended to be buried in York.
It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that if Richard had ended his life as the Lord of the North, and died in Middleham as Duke of Gloucester, then he may have chosen to have been buried somewhere in the north.
However, once he became king, the whole ball game changed. He needed to create a southern affinity - his northerners were already regarded with suspicion by the southern lords. Telling everyone he intended, as King of England, to be buried hundred of miles from the capital in the north of England would not have been politically sound. I think that the burial of Anne in Westminster Abbey fits the change in his circumstances. Kings of England, in the main, were buried either in London or close to London. I doubt that Richard would have been any different.
I guess you would then ask why bother with the huge chantry in York. Well, I believe that Richard cared for the north. He had changed the loyalties of York from Lancaster to York. He had worked for 12 years to sort out the northern problems. He wanted to leave something concrete behind to remind the north of his affection and that of his family. Having a large chantry with 100 priest and six altars would reinforce that view. It would also mean that the people of the north would not forget him and his family.
But it is not evidence - it is an inferred assumption based on the fact that the chantry was ordered. But, as evidence from the will of Earl Rivers shows, people order chantries in many churches and are not buried in any of them. Rivers mentions four chantries in his will but chooses a fifth church (without a chantry) as the place for his burial. Richard himself created chantries in a number of places associated with him and/or his family.
Nobody had ever ordered anything on this kind of scale before. It was completely unprecedented, and echoed what his brother had done at Windsor, built a family mausoleum.
Nor is it solely based on just the chantry, but on his having his coinage minted in York, investiture of his son there, his second crowning ceremony when he became King, the lavish and generous gifts he gave to York Minster, even after he became King, the length of time he stayed there on his tour of the country, longer than any other location by some way. He only visited each place before moving on for a day or two, but stayed for three weeks in York. Everything about his behaviour and itinerary points to his love of York, and his using it as his unofficial capital.
There is no doubt that he intended it to be his final resting place.
I could equally say the same thing about your POV - you do not for a moment accept that you could be wrong.
It is not 'a majority of experts and historians' as you put it, but only some of them and they only infer it - Richard's will has been lost and there is no other evidence of his wishes.
I base my opinion on expert opinions far more knowledgeable that you or I. People who have studied his life for decades, and had access to historical accounts and his few remaining documents. And many experts and historians have spoken out over the last three years, almost all espousing York as Richard's desired burial place. Some have been quoted in this thread.
Richard's will was likely destroyed by Tudor (or perhaps Beaufort), to prevent him from being returned to York where he'd be a martyr, and give the Yorkists more will to fight against Tudor. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and denying it won't make it go away.
There you go again - there is absolutely no concrete evidence. We do not know what Richard's intentions were. There is no written evidence. There are also many other people who have studied Richard's life and times who do not support your case.
His intentions are heavily implied by his actions. They provide a considerable weight of cirnumstantial evidence, which is certainly enough to ascertain where he wanted to be buried. The only expert speaking out in the last three years who supports a Leicester reburial, is a historian who works at Leicester University, so can hardly be called unbiased.
If circumstantial evidence is unacceptable, then why do courts, judges and juries, accept it? If written proof is the only way to make any kind of legal decision, then there'd be many more criminals going unpunished for their crimes. If the law accepts circumstantial evidence, then why don't you?
Yes, but at the time of Anne's death, Richard was very much alive and no doubt intended to remain so. However, Anne was buried in Westminster Abbey and there is absolutely no evidence or contemporary source who states that her interment was temporary.
Of course Richard was alive, and was already in the process of building the chantry when Anne died. Work which would have taken years, so what was he to do with her in the meantime? He had to bury her somewhere, knowing that she would remain there until the chantry was complete, maybe up to a decade or more later. He had no idea that he would also be dead in a few months time.
He adored her, so why would he not bother so much as marking her grave in the abbey, if he intended her to stay there permanently? Not the actions of a loving husband, grieving over his loss. It contradicts Richard's character, and the depth of love he had for her. The only explanation that makes sense is that he meant to move her when the chantry was ready, and give her a proper tomb there. He wasn't to know that this wasn't going to happen. How could he?
You didn't answer my question - how could he have moved his wife and son to be buried in a building that hadn't yet been built?
No knows where Edward of Middleham is buried. The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is the wrong period and is empty.
My wording was incorrect, I meant that it's supposed to be one of the possible places he's buried - although the tomb itself is empty, there is a child buried nearby, and many believe this to be Edward. The tomb is linked to him as a possible effigy added to mark his presence in the church, but is not an effigy of him, but of another child.
The other possibility is that he's buried in York Minster, which adds more weight to the evidence that Richard intended to bring his wife there, and be buried there himself, in a family mausoleum. Edward died in Middleham, so could have been easily taken for burial in the Minster. Anne died in London, so Westminster Abbey would have been the most practical temporary resting place for her.
I am very familiar with both sides of the argument.
By the way, I haven't called you a liar. I merely take issue with your constantly stating as FACT something which is merely the opinion of some - ie that Richard intended to be buried in York.
You have more than implied it, when you accused me of 'constantly repeating untruths and distortions of truths'. That's as good as calling me a liar.
I have made it clear throughout that I'm entitled to my opinions. The evidence makes it clear that Richard did intend to be buried in York, and as I said, you don't want to believe this. But the facts do speak for themselves, whether you accept them or not.
It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that if Richard had ended his life as the Lord of the North, and died in Middleham as Duke of Gloucester, then he may have chosen to have been buried somewhere in the north.
However, once he became king, the whole ball game changed. He needed to create a southern affinity - his northerners were already regarded with suspicion by the southern lords. Telling everyone he intended, as King of England, to be buried hundred of miles from the capital in the north of England would not have been politically sound. I think that the burial of Anne in Westminster Abbey fits the change in his circumstances. Kings of England, in the main, were buried either in London or close to London. I doubt that Richard would have been any different.
Richard made little effort to win over the south, that's why he lost at Bosworth - insufficient support from the southern lords and nobles, combined with betrayal on the battlefield. He ended up alone. He could still have won in spite of Stanley's betrayal, if he'd had southern support. Spending so much time and having so much loyalty in the north as King, was one of the main reasons why the south was so suspicious of him, and Richard did nothing to change this.
He moved his royal mint north, exchanged lands in the south and midlands for northern estates, and established his naval fleet in the north. If the south's reaction to these things didn't bother him, then why would their opinion on his having his burial place planned for York have done so?
There's no evidence to suggest that he would have been buried in Westminster if he'd won at Bosworth and lived a long time. You insist that there's no evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. Using your own argument, there's no 'concrete proof' that he would have been buried in London had he lived. You can't have it both ways. Either concrete (written?) proof is required for both arguments, or for neither.
I guess you would then ask why bother with the huge chantry in York. Well, I believe that Richard cared for the north. He had changed the loyalties of York from Lancaster to York. He had worked for 12 years to sort out the northern problems. He wanted to leave something concrete behind to remind the north of his affection and that of his family. Having a large chantry with 100 priest and six altars would reinforce that view. It would also mean that the people of the north would not forget him and his family.
If it was intended as some sort of fond farewell or parting gift, then why did he keep coming back to York when he was King, and spend three weeks there when he was supposed to be moving round the whole country? The priests were paid to pray for him and his family, not for the north to remember him. They were to say masses for Richard every day, not to reinforce their connections to Yorkshire or the people.
There would have been more than a dozen (if I recall correctly) altars in the chantry when complete. The north wouldn't forget him because of his establishment there, and because of his connections from the Nevilles. His actions are why his memory endures still. The last five centuries have proven that a building wan't needed for the people of the north to remember him by, they've remembered him without that, and he would've known that.
No matter what I say, you'll never believe me, and will continue to twist my points to suit your own argument. You want him buried in Leicester, and you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you, and believe the evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. I'm entitled to my opinion too. Whatever I say you will argue with. Whatever I post to prove my points you'll disbelieve.
The truth always wins out. One day Richard's wishes will be irrefutable, whatever you believe them to be. And yes, it's entirely possible that King Charles could move King Richard if he chooses to. And being the monarch, he wouldn't need a licence to do it.
There's already been a Judicial Review on this matter - the Judgement, which ran to 38 pages, specifically states (para 146) that "Mr Clarke was unable to point to any significant new factor of which the Secretary of State would have been unaware, and none emerged during the hearing. There was no direct evidence of any definitive wishes expressed by Richard III as to his place of burial, whether on the assumption that he would die in peace after a long reign, or on the assumption that he would lose the battle of Bosworth, and be killed along with his men. In our view, the suggestion that Richard III was to have endowed a chancery at York with 100 chaplains falls short of any definitive or overriding expression of where he wished to be buried." http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/richard-3rd-judgment-.pdf
The Plantagenet Alliance and the pro-York lobby fought hard enough for this JR - even though it wasn't them paying for it - but now they've had it, they want to act as if it hadn't happened. On what grounds could a further exhumation licence be granted? Certainly not to shift him to York!
There's already been a Judicial Review on this matter - the Judgement, which ran to 38 pages, specifically states (para 146) that "Mr Clarke was unable to point to any significant new factor of which the Secretary of State would have been unaware, and none emerged during the hearing. There was no direct evidence of any definitive wishes expressed by Richard III as to his place of burial, whether on the assumption that he would die in peace after a long reign, or on the assumption that he would lose the battle of Bosworth, and be killed along with his men. In our view, the suggestion that Richard III was to have endowed a chancery at York with 100 chaplains falls short of any definitive or overriding expression of where he wished to be buried." http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/richard-3rd-judgment-.pdf
The Plantagenet Alliance and the pro-York lobby fought hard enough for this JR - even though it wasn't them paying for it - but now they've had it, they want to act as if it hadn't happened. On what grounds could a further exhumation licence be granted? Certainly not to shift him to York!
Well exactly. The words of the JR are the stark and considered opinions of the legal experts who examined this case exhaustively, including due consideration of the PA's chantry argument. It all fell apart as nothing more than assumption.
It is quite deeply embarrassing for them that the JR they demanded so roundly shat on their arguments and threw them out.
Nobody had ever ordered anything on this kind of scale before. It was completely unprecedented, and echoed what his brother had done at Windsor, built a family mausoleum.
Nor is it solely based on just the chantry, but on his having his coinage minted in York, investiture of his son there, his second crowning ceremony when he became King, the lavish and generous gifts he gave to York Minster, even after he became King, the length of time he stayed there on his tour of the country, longer than any other location by some way. He only visited each place before moving on for a day or two, but stayed for three weeks in York. Everything about his behaviour and itinerary points to his love of York, and his using it as his unofficial capital.
I do not question the fact that Richard had great affection for York and Yorkshire. As I said before, he did a lot of work to ensure the locals supported the House of York. But the events which you describe as being proof of his using York as his unofficial capital can be regarded as his long farewell to the north. As king, he would have to operate out of London and the south.
There is no doubt that he intended it to be his final resting place.
There you go again with your insistence when, in fact, there is doubt - for some historians considerable doubt, over where he intended to be buried.
I base my opinion on expert opinions far more knowledgeable that you or I.
People who have studied his life for decades, and had access to historical accounts and his few remaining documents. And many experts and historians have spoken out over the last three years, almost all espousing York as Richard's desired burial place. Some have been quoted in this thread.
Yes, it is not disputed that some historians have come out in favour of York as being Richard's own choice. But it is opinion based on inferred assumptions. It is not fact.
Richard's will was likely destroyed by Tudor (or perhaps Beaufort), Ah, a fan of JAH, I see.
to prevent him from being returned to York where he'd be a martyr, and give the Yorkists more will to fight against Tudor.
No - to prevent his being buried anywhere where he could become a martyr - that is the fate of all deposed kings - to be buried in a religious establishment, with no public access. Our deposed kings were later moved to more public places by their successors and/or family. All except Richard.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and denying it won't make it go away.
Well, one person's 'overwhelming' evidence is not necessarily that of others.
His intentions are heavily implied by his actions. They provide a considerable weight of cirnumstantial evidence, which is certainly enough to ascertain where he wanted to be buried.
Not according to the High Court Judges who held the JR an extract of the judgement quoted in an earlier post making that very clear. You cannot accuse the High Court of having bias here. They were looking at the facts and only the facts.
The only expert speaking out in the last three years who supports a Leicester reburial, is a historian who works at Leicester University, so can hardly be called unbiased.
And many of the historian who support York work or have worked for York University or have links in the north.
If circumstantial evidence is unacceptable, then why do courts, judges and juries, accept it? If written proof is the only way to make any kind of legal decision, then there'd be many more criminals going unpunished for their crimes. If the law accepts circumstantial evidence, then why don't you?
I refer you to my answer regarding the High Court JR judgement.
No, it's based on decades of study and research. You don't agree with them because you don't want to, not because their work is no good.
Of course Richard was alive, and was already in the process of building the chantry when Anne died. Work which would have taken years, so what was he to do with her in the meantime? He had to bury her somewhere, knowing that she would remain there until the chantry was complete, maybe up to a decade or more later. He had no idea that he would also be dead in a few months time.
Then one would expect the contemporary sources to be clear that it was only temporary and that Anne would be moved, but they did not. Are you therefore implying that Richard kept secret this desire to be buried in York?
He adored her, so why would he not bother so much as marking her grave in the abbey, if he intended her to stay there permanently?
What is your basis for saying Richard adored Anne? That smacks of romantic historical fiction. They married both for quite sensible and practical reasons. She needed a powerful husband to protect her part of the Beauchamp/Warwick inheritance and he needed a wealthy wife whose lands could support his state as a king's brother. That they had a happy and successful marriage does not mean that either of them succumbed to the modern idea of romantic love.
Not the actions of a loving husband, grieving over his loss. It contradicts Richard's character, and the depth of love he had for her. The only explanation that makes sense is that he meant to move her when the chantry was ready, and give her a proper tomb there. He wasn't to know that this wasn't going to happen. How could he?
You didn't answer my question - how could he have moved his wife and son to be buried in a building that hadn't yet been built?
As I said before, no one knows where Edward of Middleham was buried. There have been members of the Richard III Society researching this for some time and have yet to find the answer.
My answer to your question is that if Richard's intention had been to move Anne from her burial in Westminster, then the contemporary accounts of her funeral would have stated this. Your argument about his wanting a tomb which would take years to provide would equally apply to Westminster.
My wording was incorrect, I meant that it's supposed to be one of the possible places he's buried - although the tomb itself is empty, there is a child buried nearby, and many believe this to be Edward. The tomb is linked to him as a possible effigy added to mark his presence in the church, but is not an effigy of him, but of another child.
This certainly was the case a few years ago, but modern thought is that Edward was not buried at Sheriff Hutton. Current research is looking at one or two Yorkshire Abbeys/[/I
The other possibility is that he's buried in York Minster, which adds more weight to the evidence that Richard intended to bring his wife there, and be buried there himself, in a family mausoleum. Edward died in Middleham, so could have been easily taken for burial in the Minster. Anne died in London, so Westminster Abbey would have been the most practical temporary resting place for her.
York Minster is a vast and important institution. If the Prince of Wales, son of a man held in great affection in the local area, had been buried there, you would expect to find some mention of it in their records. William of Hatfield is buried there, and that is mentioned, yet the records are silent on the question of Edward of Middleham.
You have more than implied it, when you accused me of 'constantly repeating untruths and distortions of truths'. That's as good as calling me a liar.
I did not use those words in relation to any post of yours - you must be confusing me with someone else.
I have made it clear throughout that I'm entitled to my opinions. The evidence makes it clear that Richard did intend to be buried in York, and as I said, you don't want to believe this. But the facts do speak for themselves, whether you accept them or not.
Your opinion is as valid as mine, I do not dispute that. What I do dispute is your constant refrain that Richard's intentions are known and it is a fact he wished to be buried in York, when all the 'evidence' is based on opinion and inferred assumptions. The facts do not speak for themselves, all we have is a theory which has yet to be proved.
Richard made little effort to win over the south, that's why he lost at Bosworth - insufficient support from the southern lords and nobles, combined with betrayal on the battlefield. He ended up alone. He could still have won in spite of Stanley's betrayal, if he'd had southern support. Spending so much time and having so much loyalty in the north as King, was one of the main reasons why the south was so suspicious of him, and Richard did nothing to change this.
Exactly my point. Stating an intention to be buried in the north would do nothing to help rule the country as a whole. What Richard lacked was time. It had taken him a long time to create the northern affinity and he had only just over 2 years to work on the south. Or is it your point that had Richard won Bosworth, he would have continued to ignore the south of England and think only of the north? That doesn't sound like a particularly sensible policy.
He moved his royal mint north, exchanged lands in the south and midlands for northern estates, and established his naval fleet in the north. If the south's reaction to these things didn't bother him, then why would their opinion on his having his burial place planned for York have done so?
I think you will find that the King's Royal Mint at York has a long history which predates TWOTR. Coins were minted there for Henry VI (`1424) and Edward IV (1465) for example. There were also mints in other places - Canturbury for example, as well as the Tower of London.
Edward IV originally intended Richard to govern the Welsh Marches and gave him lands there and in the south. When he changed his mind, Richard exchanged southern lands for northern lands because it made more sense. Read Horrox on this subject, it is an extremely good account of how Richard cemented his northern lands. As Admiral of England, having a naval fleet based in the north while he was Lord of the North again was sensible, especialy to guard against the Scots.
None of these have anything to do with his burial.
There's no evidence to suggest that he would have been buried in Westminster if he'd won at Bosworth and lived a long time. You insist that there's no evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. Using your own argument, there's no 'concrete proof' that he would have been buried in London had he lived. You can't have it both ways. Either concrete (written?) proof is required for both arguments, or for neither.
I agree, but I can make equally valid assumptions, looking at the burial places of former monarchs - the overwhelming majority of them were buried in or near London. Edward IV started work on a new burial place for his own family, but that, too, was close to London and in the grounds of an important Royal residence.
If it was intended as some sort of fond farewell or parting gift, then why did he keep coming back to York when he was King, and spend three weeks there when he was supposed to be moving round the whole country? The priests were paid to pray for him and his family, not for the north to remember him. They were to say masses for Richard every day, not to reinforce their connections to Yorkshire or the people.
Well the chantry itself would have been a very large structure extremely visible to all who entered the Minster. What more of a remembrance could he have constructed?
There would have been more than a dozen (if I recall correctly) altars in the chantry when complete. The north wouldn't forget him because of his establishment there, and because of his connections from the Nevilles. His actions are why his memory endures still. The last five centuries have proven that a building wan't needed for the people of the north to remember him by, they've remembered him without that, and he would've known that.
They remembered him so much, that they made efforts to retrieve his body or even locate his grave?
No matter what I say, you'll never believe me, and will continue to twist my points to suit your own argument. You want him buried in Leicester, and you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you, and believe the evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. I'm entitled to my opinion too. Whatever I say you will argue with. Whatever I post to prove my points you'll disbelieve.
The truth always wins out. One day Richard's wishes will be irrefutable, whatever you believe them to be. And yes, it's entirely possible that King Charles could move King Richard if he chooses to. And being the monarch, he wouldn't need a licence to do it.
As I have said before, you don't seem to understand Constitutional Monarchy. If you think a future King Charles could simply made a decision to move Richard without following the rules and procedures of his own Government, then you have no idea how a modern monarchy works. A future king would not exercise the power of a medieval monarch. His powers are limited by the consitution. A constitutional monarch in the UK has the right to be consulted, the right to be informed, the right to encourage and the right to warn. He or she is not able to ignore the law of the land and take unilateral action, especially to overturn the judgement of their own High Court.
DPS's post is a good illustration of where the pro-York people are. He claims that there is overwhelming evidence that Richard III wanted to be buried in York. The Chantry itself was impressive, but the Council of the North had already been established in York, by Edward IV, not Richard. Considerable details are known about he chantry, and even according to the facebook post that DPS states:
Nowhere in the surviving evidence, however, is there any reference to the construction of a tomb or a chantry chapel in which a tomb would be located.
The article goes on to claim that Richard III didn't have time to start planning for the tomb or mausoleum that it is claimed that he wanted, and that these plans probably perished with him. In other words, no actual evidence that the chantry was intended as a tomb, and the very big question of why these plans weren't in evidence.
We also have the fact that Anne of Neville was buried at Westminster Abbey. This isn't mentioned in the facebook article at all. Very, very, telling.
The evidence that is being quoted of Richard's great love for York seems to be that a lot of time was spent there, and money spent there. This seems to quite ignore the entirely reasonable alternate explanation that York was established as the centre of power in the north, Richard had effectively been ruling from there for some time. This in itself can justify the money and time spent at York compared to other locations, with requiring a personal affinity or a desire to be buried there.
Alison Hanham's research which questions whether or not Richard had an affinity for York at all has not even been mentioned in this thread of years long.
Reading DPS's post, it's quite clear that Richard III's 'desire to be buried at York' is being treated as dogma. Statements such as 'the truth will out', 'overwhelming evidence' etc. There isn't even strong evidence of this claimed desire. Arguments for this claim, even by claimed distinguished historians are highly selective, listing only the evidence for, and not the considerable evidence against. (Lack of a tomb, burial of his wife, question of whether or not Richard III did have a personal affinity for York). Ambiguous evidence is being interpreted as supporting only one side of the argument. E.g. that a large amount of money and more time was spent at York, when its position as an administrative/ruling centre of the north can equally explain this.
What we see from the pro-York faction is this over and over again. Careful selection of evidence. Completely hyperbolic evaluations of the strength of the 'scraps' of evidence that we have. Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis. Outright lying. (pro-York facebook groups are still talking about the 'descendants' of Richard III even though there is absolutely no way that they can be unaware that there aren't any descendants of Richard III. It's intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. Evidence against this includes the fact that Richard III intended to be buried in Westminster Abbey, in particular that he buried his wife there.
If there was a strong argument that Richard III definitely wanted to be buried at York, then it would be out in the public view by now. There isn't any such evidence, no matter how desperately some people are to believe it.
And to prove, what exactly? That Richard III wanted to be buried in York? Even if this could be shown (and it hasn't by a long shot), then we have to remember that history is that Richard III was killed at Bosworth, and buried in Leicester. Now, 500 years later, Richard III's burial has been rediscovered and good archaeological/historical practice is being applied. He's being reburied in the nearest consecrated ground. A fundamental rule is being applied - you don't *&£$ with history. Pro-York people are so bizarrely obsessed with bringing him to York that they are prepared to run roughshod over history, to re-write it. Richard most likely wished to be buried at Westminster, but he wasn't. Even if there was strong evidence of his burial choices, what happened in history happened, and we as a culture are now sophisticated enough to realise this and not rewrite history. Some of us, anyhow.
The pro-York people were shot to pieces by the judicial review. But it won't matter. The pro-York people and groups are acting like a cult, and it will go on. As pointed out above, the beliefs are very strongly ingrained. DPS expresses frustration that his 'evidence' is ignored. What DPS doesn't realise is his/her degree of personal bias and desperation to believe means that DPS simply cannot understand that the 'strong' or even claimedly 'overwhelming' evidence is nothing of the sort. The judicial review should have been a serious wake-up call. But no, pro-York people are sitting around coming up with ever more bizarre delusions and supporting each other in them, leading them to drift further and further away from objective reality. It's like a UFO cult. Don't drink the kool-aid, folks.
And yes, it's entirely possible that King Charles could move King Richard if he chooses to. And being the monarch, he wouldn't need a licence to do it.
What??? I've just been stopped in my tracks by this. What on earth makes you think that a modern monarch isn't subject to the same laws as everybody else??? To me, this small statement illustrates the unrealistic take on the whole thing.
Don't you remember when Princess Anne was done for speeding - or when she was prosecuted for her dog biting someone. The Royal Family are subject to the same Laws as the rest of us. Their blood isn't really blue you know - not unless they have porphyria, anyway!
The only thing I can add to the three posts above, is that as a keen Historian (but R3 "virgin"), I've never come across a field of debate where the argument is so tainted or compromised, by advocates who quote from neither primary contemporary sources nor secondary scholarship - but works of fiction! Only the Tudors and perhaps the Civil War come anywhere close, but the Daughter of Time and its many derivatives have an awful lot to answer for.
The only thing I can add to the three posts above, is that as a keen Historian (but R3 "virgin"), I've never come across a field of debate where the argument is so tainted or compromised, by advocates who quote from neither primary contemporary sources nor secondary scholarship - but works of fiction! Only the Tudors and perhaps the Civil War come anywhere close, but the Daughter of Time and its many derivatives have an awful lot to answer for.
DPS's obsessional and repetitive posts, and his inability to see the other side of an argument cannot be overcome. In another thread, it has transpired that he is ASD, and whilst clearly in possession of a brain, it's wired a little differently. I think we'll have to agree to differ with him.
DPS's obsessional and repetitive posts, and his inability to see the other side of an argument cannot be overcome. In another thread, it has transpired that he is ASD, and whilst clearly in possession of a brain, it's wired a little differently. I think we'll have to agree to differ with him.
If anybody thinks I'm going to read 218 pages in order to catch up on this thread, then think again.
DPS's obsessional and repetitive posts, and his inability to see the other side of an argument cannot be overcome. In another thread, it has transpired that he is ASD, and whilst clearly in possession of a brain, it's wired a little differently. I think we'll have to agree to differ with him.
I beg her pardon, then. She still can't help her insistence on the subject. What Kappellmeister's excuse is I have no idea. Another bright guy, gone all weird on us.
I beg her pardon, then. She still can't help her insistence on the subject. What Kappellmeister's excuse is I have no idea. Another bright guy, gone all weird on us.
I agree. The Leicester mayor particularly, Peter Soulsby, has emerged as a figure clearly only interested in the financial implications of the discovery.
Nearly all the great medieval and Tudor kings and queens have been buried in either secular/monastic cathedrals or great abbey churches. Leicester's pitiful 'cathedral' is neither. To force a burial there is quite disgraceful.
Maybe HRH authorised it, seeing as the Tudors nicked the throne.
I beg her pardon, then. She still can't help her insistence on the subject. What Kappellmeister's excuse is I have no idea. Another bright guy, gone all weird on us.
I don't mind Kapellmeister - he's just taciturn and hates pretty much everything. This is one of his pet hates.
I have a soft spot for him though, and he can be very funny in an acerbic kind of way. His florid put-downs and hyperboles are so theatrical, you can't help but grin; he must know this, and he relishes it....
He can't stick me though, and has me on 'ignore' I think:D^_^
...Anyway we're veering off into talking about FMs now, which isn't all that conducive to the discussion!
And to prove, what exactly? That Richard III wanted to be buried in York? Even if this could be shown (and it hasn't by a long shot), then we have to remember that history is that Richard III was killed at Bosworth, and buried in Leicester. Now, 500 years later, Richard III's burial has been rediscovered and good archaeological/historical practice is being applied. He's being reburied in the nearest consecrated ground. A fundamental rule is being applied - you don't *&£$ with history. Pro-York people are so bizarrely obsessed with bringing him to York that they are prepared to run roughshod over history, to re-write it. Richard most likely wished to be buried at Westminster, but he wasn't. Even if there was strong evidence of his burial choices, what happened in history happened, and we as a culture are now sophisticated enough to realise this and not rewrite history. Some of us, anyhow.
Exactly. This has been the essence of my argument all along.
The pro-York people were shot to pieces by the judicial review. But it won't matter. The pro-York people and groups are acting like a cult, and it will go on. As pointed out above, the beliefs are very strongly ingrained. DPS expresses frustration that his 'evidence' is ignored. What DPS doesn't realise is his/her degree of personal bias and desperation to believe means that DPS simply cannot understand that the 'strong' or even claimedly 'overwhelming' evidence is nothing of the sort. The judicial review should have been a serious wake-up call. But no, pro-York people are sitting around coming up with ever more bizarre delusions and supporting each other in them, leading them to drift further and further away from objective reality. It's like a UFO cult. Don't drink the kool-aid, folks.
Again spot-on.
It is clear that many among the faction are incapable of being dispassionate with regards to this issue.
Some of the proclamations seem nearly driven by profound personal grief, which is ridiculous, considering the man died over 500 years ago.
The Plantagenet Alliance and the pro-York lobby fought hard enough for this JR - even though it wasn't them paying for it - but now they've had it, they want to act as if it hadn't happened. On what grounds could a further exhumation licence be granted? Certainly not to shift him to York!
A further licence won't be needed - he's already been exhumed once, and his remains have to be kept scientifically available because of it. Once he's disinterred for further testing, it would be very easy to rebury him elsewhere, no paperwork required. And given the ease and routine with which licences are issued, a new licence would be just as obtainable if it did become necessary. On the grounds that he was buried in the wrong place, and not according to his own wishes. A person's wishes have to be taken into consideration, and if they weren't, a new licence could apply.
Well exactly. The words of the JR are the stark and considered opinions of the legal experts who examined this case exhaustively, including due consideration of the PA's chantry argument. It all fell apart as nothing more than assumption.
It is quite deeply embarrassing for them that the JR they demanded so roundly shat on their arguments and threw them out.
I find it strange that you talk as if judges always make the right decisions, and don't make mistakes. If you don't agree with this, then what's to say that they didn't get this decision wrong, if they do sometimes make mistakes? Because you agree with them on this occasion?
I do not question the fact that Richard had great affection for York and Yorkshire. As I said before, he did a lot of work to ensure the locals supported the House of York. But the events which you describe as being proof of his using York as his unofficial capital can be regarded as his long farewell to the north. As king, he would have to operate out of London and the south.
But when he was King, he didn't. For two years he didn't. Had he lived longer, yes, he would've had to have built connections with the south. But he didn't while he lived, and we'll never know how he would've treated the south if he'd lived longer. But it's a strong indicator that he had a preference for the north, in that he had two years to ingratiate himself with the south, and chose not to.
There's nothing to say that he had to operate out of London or the south. There were fears that he intended to officially move the capital to York, and had he lived, he may have done just that. So your assumption that his building the chantry and the other time he spent there must've been a farewell, is based on your unwillingness to believe otherwise.
There you go again with your insistence when, in fact, there is doubt - for some historians considerable doubt, over where he intended to be buried.
How many cast considerable doubt over Leicester being an acceptable burial place for him? Most say York, and almost all say, not Leicester. Just because a few are unsure of where he may have chosen, doesn't prove that there's considerable doubt over Richard's intentions.
Yes, it is not disputed that some historians have come out in favour of York as being Richard's own choice. But it is opinion based on inferred assumptions. It is not fact.
It's expert opinion based on the circumstantial evidence, and years of research.
Not in the slightest. I base my opinion on Margaret Beaufort rifling through Richard's belongings after Bosworth and taking his Book of Hours, and the very rapid disappearance of most of Richard's papers after Tudor became King.
No - to prevent his being buried anywhere where he could become a martyr - that is the fate of all deposed kings - to be buried in a religious establishment, with no public access. Our deposed kings were later moved to more public places by their successors and/or family. All except Richard.
Precisely. Richard was buried by his enemy in a Tudor stronghold (Leicester), in a location within a building that he couldn't easily be removed from because of this. As opposed to being returned to York by his family and buried in a place where thousands of people could see his tomb, and pay their respects. None of the Tudors would have allowed him to be returned to his home and buried with honour, that would have kept alive the risk of conflict, due to their weak claims to the throne, and the north's loyalty to Richard. Loyalty which had to be broken somehow, hence Tudor destroying as much of Richard's legacy as possible, blackening his name, and preventing him from having a tomb in York, which would have become a focal point for Richard's martyrdom.
Not according to the High Court Judges who held the JR an extract of the judgement quoted in an earlier post making that very clear. You cannot accuse the High Court of having bias here. They were looking at the facts and only the facts.
But not all of them. Only what was presented. Much of which was ignored.
And many of the historian who support York work or have worked for York University or have links in the north.
There are historians all over the country and in other countries who have said the same thing about Richard being buried in York. They can't possibly all have links to York and the north.
Then one would expect the contemporary sources to be clear that it was only temporary and that Anne would be moved, but they did not. Are you therefore implying that Richard kept secret this desire to be buried in York?
No, Richard's actions speak loudly enough. A huge addition to York Minster is hardly a secret. Unless you're suggesting that nobody would've noticed a giant new extention to a major cathedral? And why would there need to be a written account of Richard's intentions to move his wife and son? Not marking the graves of the two people he loved most, says it all.
What is your basis for saying Richard adored Anne? That smacks of romantic historical fiction. They married both for quite sensible and practical reasons. She needed a powerful husband to protect her part of the Beauchamp/Warwick inheritance and he needed a wealthy wife whose lands could support his state as a king's brother. That they had a happy and successful marriage does not mean that either of them succumbed to the modern idea of romantic love.
A person who marries someone for practical or reasons of power, doesn't grieve the way Richard did when Anne died. There's an account of him weeping publically at her funeral, and his behaviour for the last few months of his life were those of someone who was very depressed, so clearly he loved her.
I don't subscribe to them having a modern romantic love. Far from it, I find all those romantic historical books about them something to be avoided. Not my cup of tea at all. I base my opinion on the way Richard was after Anne died. His grief was palpable.
As I said before, no one knows where Edward of Middleham was buried. There have been members of the Richard III Society researching this for some time and have yet to find the answer.
My answer to your question is that if Richard's intention had been to move Anne from her burial in Westminster, then the contemporary accounts of her funeral would have stated this. Your argument about his wanting a tomb which would take years to provide would equally apply to Westminster.
Whether we know where Edward was buried or not is merely an interesting sideline, it has no bearing on whether or not his father intended to move him. Richard knew where his son was, and the fact that we don't shows that again, Richard didn't mark the grave.
Given the pomp and ceremony, time and effort Richard went to, to move his father's grave and rebury him properly, it's a strong indicator of why he didn't mark his wife and sons graves. It can only be because he meant to move them later, and give them proper tombs elsewhere.
My argument doesn't apply to Westminster, because if that was to be her final resting place, she would have only needed a tomb - the building was already there. Richard needed to construct the chantry in which to build a tomb at York, before he could move his family there. It would have been stupid to build the tombs first, bury his wife and son, and then construct a building around them. He could hardly have their graves located in the open air on a building site, could he? A tomb for her in Westminster would have only taken a few months at most, time which he had. Had he known that he was going to die later that year, he may well have built her a tomb there, if he'd thought that he wouldn't have been able to move her. But he didn't know that. He made no effort to build one, which strongly implies that he didn't mean her to stay there.
This certainly was the case a few years ago, but modern thought is that Edward was not buried at Sheriff Hutton. Current research is looking at one or two Yorkshire Abbeys
I hope that he's not found. It would be awful if Edward was subjected to the same treatment as his father.
York Minster is a vast and important institution. If the Prince of Wales, son of a man held in great affection in the local area, had been buried there, you would expect to find some mention of it in their records. William of Hatfield is buried there, and that is mentioned, yet the records are silent on the question of Edward of Middleham.
The records of Westminster Abbey are silent on the child's coffin hidden behind a wall in Edward IV's grave too. Doesn't mean that there isn't somebody buried there. Not everything is recorded, and not all records survive over very long periods of time.
Your opinion is as valid as mine, I do not dispute that. What I do dispute is your constant refrain that Richard's intentions are known and it is a fact he wished to be buried in York, when all the 'evidence' is based on opinion and inferred assumptions. The facts do not speak for themselves, all we have is a theory which has yet to be proved.
No the evidence is circumstantial. His actions show his intentions.
Exactly my point. Stating an intention to be buried in the north would do nothing to help rule the country as a whole. What Richard lacked was time. It had taken him a long time to create the northern affinity and he had only just over 2 years to work on the south. Or is it your point that had Richard won Bosworth, he would have continued to ignore the south of England and think only of the north? That doesn't sound like a particularly sensible policy.
He made very little effort to win over the south, he barely even tried. After Bosworth he may well have tried to build stronger connections to the south, but in the two years that he was King, he didn't. He chose to visit as many places as possible, and stop for as long as he could in York. Whether or not it was a sensible policy is irrelevant. He preferred the north through his own choice, and his actions show this.
If the rumours about him making York his capital were true, then of course he would have been buried there. Building the chantry could well have been the first major sign that he intended to do this, and had he lived, he may have ruled from the north, and not the south. I doubt the south would've been happy about it, and would've needed a lot more diplomacy to be won over afterwards. But their not liking such a situation doesn't prove that Richard wouldn't have done it. We'll never know.
I think you will find that the King's Royal Mint at York has a long history which predates TWOTR. Coins were minted there for Henry VI (`1424) and Edward IV (1465) for example. There were also mints in other places - Canturbury for example, as well as the Tower of London.
Edward IV originally intended Richard to govern the Welsh Marches and gave him lands there and in the south. When he changed his mind, Richard exchanged southern lands for northern lands because it made more sense. Read Horrox on this subject, it is an extremely good account of how Richard cemented his northern lands. As Admiral of England, having a naval fleet based in the north while he was Lord of the North again was sensible, especialy to guard against the Scots.
None of these have anything to do with his burial.
No, it has nothing to do with his burial. But his favouring York for his coinage is another one of many connections he had with the north. As you say, there were other mints - if he wasn't particularly attatched to Yorkshire, then why didn't he choose a different mint? Or have several mints making different coins? Of course he would choose the one in the place that he preferred, especially if he was going to make York his own official capital.
If Richard only led the north because his brother wanted him to, then why didn't he keep his other estates? Why did he specifically trade them in for northern ones, if he was only there because he had to be? The north is very beautiful, there's no denying that, but there's no doubt that the better and richer farmlands are in the south, flatter ground for crops, and better pasture for animals. Surely it would have made more sense to keep his southern estates which he could accrue more profit from? But he chose to get rid of them for land in the north.
You like contemporary accounts - there's one which states that 'He was no taxer of the people, no oppressor of the commons (though he came to manage an estate whose treasure was exceedingly exhausted)'. Doesn't this suggest that his trading was for something that wouldn't profit him? Why would he make such a bad deal, unless he loved the northern lands, and wanted to have a greater stake in them? He loved the northern landscape so much, that he made a huge hole in one of the defensive walls of (I think it was) Barnard Castle, for a picture window so that he could look out upon it. (It may have been Bolton Castle, I don't quite recall.)
I agree, but I can make equally valid assumptions, looking at the burial places of former monarchs - the overwhelming majority of them were buried in or near London. Edward IV started work on a new burial place for his own family, but that, too, was close to London and in the grounds of an important Royal residence.
Edward IV had closer links to the south than the north, so of course he would choose to build his family mausoleum in the place that he felt was his home. Which is what Richard was doing. If he was most likely to have wanted to be buried in Westminster, then wouldn't he have begun constructing something suitable there, like his brother did? He was certainly constructing something akin to his brother's burial place - at York Minster.
Well the chantry itself would have been a very large structure extremely visible to all who entered the Minster. What more of a remembrance could he have constructed?
He already had a strong legacy of fair rule and peace that would have more than been enough, and he'd have known that. Hence his rejecting money and offerings in various cities around the country when he was King. He stated that he 'would rather have their love than their treasure'. He knew that reputation and actions are the best way to ensure that people remembered him, and he was right - Yorkshire has remembered his legacy for over 500 years.
They remembered him so much, that they made efforts to retrieve his body or even locate his grave?
How could they have retrieved his body, when Henry Tudor made an effort to execute everyone who was still loyal to Richard after he was dead? The only ones who survived were those who offered no resistance to Tudor's rule. When he visited York, he took a large army with him as a show of power to anyone who may still oppose him. He was effectively threatening them. By the time the Tudors were all gone, efforts were made to retrieve Richard's body, but by then the story about him being dug up and thrown in the river Soar had been circulating for some time, and people thought that he was lost. How could he have been recovered then?
The same can be said about Leicester - if Leicester loves Richard so much, then how come nobody made any effort to locate him until now? Even though the council was shown evidence in the 1960's that his grave was there, nobody bothered to find him and move him then. There was only interest when it became apparent that having a King buried in Leicester Cathedral could be a money-spinner, and boost tourism in the city.
As I have said before, you don't seem to understand Constitutional Monarchy. If you think a future King Charles could simply made a decision to move Richard without following the rules and procedures of his own Government, then you have no idea how a modern monarchy works. A future king would not exercise the power of a medieval monarch. His powers are limited by the consitution. A constitutional monarch in the UK has the right to be consulted, the right to be informed, the right to encourage and the right to warn. He or she is not able to ignore the law of the land and take unilateral action, especially to overturn the judgement of their own High Court.
If you think that a future King Charles will rule the way his mother does, then you may be in for a surprise. He's known to get involved in whatever suits him, and there are concerns that he may continue to do so when he's King. Especially as he's been involving himself in various political matters for so long. Prince Charles is currently an unknown quantity, and we won't know how he'll behave until he's actually King.
And the constitution is fairly fluid, because it's not written. This makes it easy to change when needs be, as the government has recently for example, in changing the law over gender succession. Anything could happen, we won't know until the time comes. And even if he respects the constitution as it is, as you said, he can still encourage. He can encourage the government of the day to move his ancestor. As King, his wishes would have to be given serious consideration, and it could cause problems if he feels strongly about the situation, and they ignored him. Causing a rift between government and monarchy, would be unwise.
The article goes on to claim that Richard III didn't have time to start planning for the tomb or mausoleum that it is claimed that he wanted, and that these plans probably perished with him. In other words, no actual evidence that the chantry was intended as a tomb, and the very big question of why these plans weren't in evidence.
The foundations were already built at the time of his death. His surviving letters show that he was very concerned that the 100 priests that would pray for his and his family's souls were to be paid properly, and six of the altars had already been completed. The plans were well under way. Their existence is the evidence, and denying it won't make it go away.
We also have the fact that Anne of Neville was buried at Westminster Abbey. This isn't mentioned in the facebook article at all. Very, very, telling.
Why would Anne Neville's burial be mentioned? The article is about Richard's plans, and whether or not he was doing what his brother was doing in building a chantry chapel for his own burial. The fact that his wife and son's graves weren't marked, and that he was negotiating a marriage to Joanna of Portugal at the time of his death, and would therefore have needed to ensure that his own burial place was sufficient for not only his first queen, but also his second, make it clear that a building the size of the chantry at York was to have a more important purpose. 100 priests to pray for his, and his family's souls?
The evidence that is being quoted of Richard's great love for York seems to be that a lot of time was spent there, and money spent there. This seems to quite ignore the entirely reasonable alternate explanation that York was established as the centre of power in the north, Richard had effectively been ruling from there for some time. This in itself can justify the money and time spent at York compared to other locations, with requiring a personal affinity or a desire to be buried there.
It can also justify his possible intention to make York his capital, and rule from there. In which case, it's all the more likely that the chantry was for himself, and his family's mausoleum.
Alison Hanham's research which questions whether or not Richard had an affinity for York at all has not even been mentioned in this thread of years long.
I have never heard of Alison Hanham. But there's plenty of research which supports his affinity for the north and York, and Richard's many connections and choices show that he did indeed have a love of the county.
pro-York facebook groups are still talking about the 'descendants' of Richard III even though there is absolutely no way that they can be unaware that there aren't any descendants of Richard III.
If there aren't any collateral descendants of Richard's then where did the DNA to confirm the identity of his remains come from? Michael Ibsen is a collateral descendant, as are members of the Plantagenet Alliance, as well as many others who have not been DNA tested, but can prove their lineage. When most people state 'descendants', they're referring to descendants of Richard's siblings, not of him. But I suspect that you already know this, and are just picking on their abbreviating 'collateral descendants' to 'descendants', in order to have something else to criticise them for.
If there was a strong argument that Richard III definitely wanted to be buried at York, then it would be out in the public view by now. There isn't any such evidence, no matter how desperately some people are to believe it.
It is out in the public view, which is why there are thousands of people all over the world supporting his return to be buried in York.
Now, 500 years later, Richard III's burial has been rediscovered and good archaeological/historical practice is being applied. He's being reburied in the nearest consecrated ground. A fundamental rule is being applied - you don't *&£$ with history.
Normal archaelogical practice should not apply here, as this is not a normal person, nor a normal situation. The rules weren't written with the expectation of finding someone of this importance, they were written for ordinary people, under circumstances that could happen over and over again. And archaelogical 'best practice' is an APABE guideline and isn't legally binding, so it doesn't have to be followed at all.
And if you shouldn't mess with history, then why aren't you criticising Leicester for trying airbrush Richard's Yorkshire connections out of his history? Why don't you criticise the Tudors and Shakespeare for branding Richard a child-murdering usurper, when there's no evidence of either of those things happening? History is always written by the winners, but that doesn't mean that it's the truth. It should be changed if the truth is uncovered. Now that Richard has been found (and wasn't lost in the Soar), he can be returned to his home for reburial.
If at some point someone finds a surviving copy of Richard's will, and it states clearly in his own handwriting that the chantry was to be his mausoleum, and he wanted to be buried in York Minster, would you continue to insist that 'history shouldn't be messed with', and he should stay in Leicester?
The pro-York people were shot to pieces by the judicial review. But it won't matter. The pro-York people and groups are acting like a cult, and it will go on. As pointed out above, the beliefs are very strongly ingrained. DPS expresses frustration that his 'evidence' is ignored. What DPS doesn't realise is his/her degree of personal bias and desperation to believe means that DPS simply cannot understand that the 'strong' or even claimedly 'overwhelming' evidence is nothing of the sort. The judicial review should have been a serious wake-up call. But no, pro-York people are sitting around coming up with ever more bizarre delusions and supporting each other in them, leading them to drift further and further away from objective reality. It's like a UFO cult. Don't drink the kool-aid, folks.
You accuse me of personal bias, and don't consider the possibility that you have a personal bias for Leicester?
If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. But to accuse me of bias just because I disagree with you, is hypocritical. And to accuse the York supporters of being a delusional cult just because they're standing up for what they believe in, says rather more about you than it does about them.
What??? I've just been stopped in my tracks by this. What on earth makes you think that a modern monarch isn't subject to the same laws as everybody else??? To me, this small statement illustrates the unrealistic take on the whole thing.
Don't you remember when Princess Anne was done for speeding - or when she was prosecuted for her dog biting someone. The Royal Family are subject to the same Laws as the rest of us. Their blood isn't really blue you know - not unless they have porphyria, anyway!
As I've said, nobody knows what's going to happen when Prince Charles is King. And nobody knows whether or not future governments/judges/Ministers/etc, may agree with him. He may be subject to the law, but the law can be changed, laws are changed all the time. Don't make the mistake in assuming that just because the law currently allows Richard to be buried in Leicester, that this will always be the case. Time will tell.
Who cares. It's just a pile of bones. What the hell does it matter what city they're buried in? People have managed just fine for the last 500 years without worrying about it.
Who cares. It's just a pile of bones. What the hell does it matter what city they're buried in? People have managed just fine for the last 500 years without worrying about it.
My thoughts exactly. Look around you with all the problems we have today/currently in the UK and elsewhere around the world, and people are writing thesis's on where somebody who snuffed it 529 years ago should be buried. I'll deal with the problem. Dump the bones off the back of a boat somewhere in the English Channel.
I bet if you asked 100 immigrants who Richard III was, the vast majority would go 'Richard who?'. And I suspect a substantial number of 'native' (young) people living today in the UK will also have never heard of him. However, they'll tell you anything and everything you need to know about an iPhone for example, OTOH.
A further licence won't be needed - he's already been exhumed once, and his remains have to be kept scientifically available because of it. Once he's disinterred for further testing, it would be very easy to rebury him elsewhere, no paperwork required. And given the ease and routine with which licences are issued, a new licence would be just as obtainable if it did become necessary. On the grounds that he was buried in the wrong place, and not according to his own wishes. A person's wishes have to be taken into consideration, and if they weren't, a new licence could apply.
Where on earth did you get that idea? All human remains which are to be moved require a licence. Just because someone has already been moved once doesn't make any difference.
Both the University of Leicester and the Cathedral have stated categorically that there are no plans to disinter him. All material used for the current round of testing will be interred with him.
A person's wishes are only taken into account if we know what they were.
There's nothing to say that he had to operate out of London or the south. There were fears that he intended to officially move the capital to York, and had he lived, he may have done just that. So your assumption that his building the chantry and the other time he spent there must've been a farewell, is based on your unwillingness to believe otherwise.
Please give me the source for the fears that Richard intended officially to move the capital to York.
If Richard only led the north because his brother wanted him to, then why didn't he keep his other estates? Why did he specifically trade them in for northern ones, if he was only there because he had to be? The north is very beautiful, there's no denying that, but there's no doubt that the better and richer farmlands are in the south, flatter ground for crops, and better pasture for animals. Surely it would have made more sense to keep his southern estates which he could accrue more profit from? But he chose to get rid of them for land in the north.
It you think about it, it is a perfectly logical course of action. Richard had been sent to the north by his brother to sort it out. He expected to be there for years - he did not expect to become king, for example. In addition, his wife had inherited significant northern estates. It made sense to consolidate his own lands (some of which actually belonged to the Crown and were only granted for as long as the king wished them to be) in the same area. It certainly made more sense than having many different parcels of land scattered throughout the entire country.
Comments
A highly selective albeit well-reasoned argument but too little, too late, I'm afraid. Pity the pro-York campaign concentrated on wholesale denigration of anything connected with Leicester past and present, and absurd overblown claims for the flimsy and circumstantial (aka "inferred") tissue of fabrications and half-truths supporting their case.
Ploughing this furrow always avoids the big hole in the inference game, that if Richard entertained the possibility of losing at Bosworth and being killed, the then king would have the right to determine where and how Richard would be buried, and that his successor 500+ years later saw no reason to overrule this.
I am very familiar with both sides of the argument.
By the way, I haven't called you a liar. I merely take issue with your constantly stating as FACT something which is merely the opinion of some - ie that Richard intended to be buried in York.
It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that if Richard had ended his life as the Lord of the North, and died in Middleham as Duke of Gloucester, then he may have chosen to have been buried somewhere in the north.
However, once he became king, the whole ball game changed. He needed to create a southern affinity - his northerners were already regarded with suspicion by the southern lords. Telling everyone he intended, as King of England, to be buried hundred of miles from the capital in the north of England would not have been politically sound. I think that the burial of Anne in Westminster Abbey fits the change in his circumstances. Kings of England, in the main, were buried either in London or close to London. I doubt that Richard would have been any different.
I guess you would then ask why bother with the huge chantry in York. Well, I believe that Richard cared for the north. He had changed the loyalties of York from Lancaster to York. He had worked for 12 years to sort out the northern problems. He wanted to leave something concrete behind to remind the north of his affection and that of his family. Having a large chantry with 100 priest and six altars would reinforce that view. It would also mean that the people of the north would not forget him and his family.
Nobody had ever ordered anything on this kind of scale before. It was completely unprecedented, and echoed what his brother had done at Windsor, built a family mausoleum.
Nor is it solely based on just the chantry, but on his having his coinage minted in York, investiture of his son there, his second crowning ceremony when he became King, the lavish and generous gifts he gave to York Minster, even after he became King, the length of time he stayed there on his tour of the country, longer than any other location by some way. He only visited each place before moving on for a day or two, but stayed for three weeks in York. Everything about his behaviour and itinerary points to his love of York, and his using it as his unofficial capital.
There is no doubt that he intended it to be his final resting place.
I base my opinion on expert opinions far more knowledgeable that you or I. People who have studied his life for decades, and had access to historical accounts and his few remaining documents. And many experts and historians have spoken out over the last three years, almost all espousing York as Richard's desired burial place. Some have been quoted in this thread.
Richard's will was likely destroyed by Tudor (or perhaps Beaufort), to prevent him from being returned to York where he'd be a martyr, and give the Yorkists more will to fight against Tudor. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and denying it won't make it go away.
His intentions are heavily implied by his actions. They provide a considerable weight of cirnumstantial evidence, which is certainly enough to ascertain where he wanted to be buried. The only expert speaking out in the last three years who supports a Leicester reburial, is a historian who works at Leicester University, so can hardly be called unbiased.
If circumstantial evidence is unacceptable, then why do courts, judges and juries, accept it? If written proof is the only way to make any kind of legal decision, then there'd be many more criminals going unpunished for their crimes. If the law accepts circumstantial evidence, then why don't you?
No, it's based on decades of study and research. You don't agree with them because you don't want to, not because their work is no good.
Of course Richard was alive, and was already in the process of building the chantry when Anne died. Work which would have taken years, so what was he to do with her in the meantime? He had to bury her somewhere, knowing that she would remain there until the chantry was complete, maybe up to a decade or more later. He had no idea that he would also be dead in a few months time.
He adored her, so why would he not bother so much as marking her grave in the abbey, if he intended her to stay there permanently? Not the actions of a loving husband, grieving over his loss. It contradicts Richard's character, and the depth of love he had for her. The only explanation that makes sense is that he meant to move her when the chantry was ready, and give her a proper tomb there. He wasn't to know that this wasn't going to happen. How could he?
You didn't answer my question - how could he have moved his wife and son to be buried in a building that hadn't yet been built?
My wording was incorrect, I meant that it's supposed to be one of the possible places he's buried - although the tomb itself is empty, there is a child buried nearby, and many believe this to be Edward. The tomb is linked to him as a possible effigy added to mark his presence in the church, but is not an effigy of him, but of another child.
The other possibility is that he's buried in York Minster, which adds more weight to the evidence that Richard intended to bring his wife there, and be buried there himself, in a family mausoleum. Edward died in Middleham, so could have been easily taken for burial in the Minster. Anne died in London, so Westminster Abbey would have been the most practical temporary resting place for her.
You have more than implied it, when you accused me of 'constantly repeating untruths and distortions of truths'. That's as good as calling me a liar.
I have made it clear throughout that I'm entitled to my opinions. The evidence makes it clear that Richard did intend to be buried in York, and as I said, you don't want to believe this. But the facts do speak for themselves, whether you accept them or not.
Richard made little effort to win over the south, that's why he lost at Bosworth - insufficient support from the southern lords and nobles, combined with betrayal on the battlefield. He ended up alone. He could still have won in spite of Stanley's betrayal, if he'd had southern support. Spending so much time and having so much loyalty in the north as King, was one of the main reasons why the south was so suspicious of him, and Richard did nothing to change this.
He moved his royal mint north, exchanged lands in the south and midlands for northern estates, and established his naval fleet in the north. If the south's reaction to these things didn't bother him, then why would their opinion on his having his burial place planned for York have done so?
There's no evidence to suggest that he would have been buried in Westminster if he'd won at Bosworth and lived a long time. You insist that there's no evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. Using your own argument, there's no 'concrete proof' that he would have been buried in London had he lived. You can't have it both ways. Either concrete (written?) proof is required for both arguments, or for neither.
If it was intended as some sort of fond farewell or parting gift, then why did he keep coming back to York when he was King, and spend three weeks there when he was supposed to be moving round the whole country? The priests were paid to pray for him and his family, not for the north to remember him. They were to say masses for Richard every day, not to reinforce their connections to Yorkshire or the people.
There would have been more than a dozen (if I recall correctly) altars in the chantry when complete. The north wouldn't forget him because of his establishment there, and because of his connections from the Nevilles. His actions are why his memory endures still. The last five centuries have proven that a building wan't needed for the people of the north to remember him by, they've remembered him without that, and he would've known that.
No matter what I say, you'll never believe me, and will continue to twist my points to suit your own argument. You want him buried in Leicester, and you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you, and believe the evidence that he wanted to be buried in York. I'm entitled to my opinion too. Whatever I say you will argue with. Whatever I post to prove my points you'll disbelieve.
The truth always wins out. One day Richard's wishes will be irrefutable, whatever you believe them to be. And yes, it's entirely possible that King Charles could move King Richard if he chooses to. And being the monarch, he wouldn't need a licence to do it.
The Plantagenet Alliance and the pro-York lobby fought hard enough for this JR - even though it wasn't them paying for it - but now they've had it, they want to act as if it hadn't happened. On what grounds could a further exhumation licence be granted? Certainly not to shift him to York!
Well exactly. The words of the JR are the stark and considered opinions of the legal experts who examined this case exhaustively, including due consideration of the PA's chantry argument. It all fell apart as nothing more than assumption.
It is quite deeply embarrassing for them that the JR they demanded so roundly shat on their arguments and threw them out.
As I have said before, you don't seem to understand Constitutional Monarchy. If you think a future King Charles could simply made a decision to move Richard without following the rules and procedures of his own Government, then you have no idea how a modern monarchy works. A future king would not exercise the power of a medieval monarch. His powers are limited by the consitution. A constitutional monarch in the UK has the right to be consulted, the right to be informed, the right to encourage and the right to warn. He or she is not able to ignore the law of the land and take unilateral action, especially to overturn the judgement of their own High Court.
The article goes on to claim that Richard III didn't have time to start planning for the tomb or mausoleum that it is claimed that he wanted, and that these plans probably perished with him. In other words, no actual evidence that the chantry was intended as a tomb, and the very big question of why these plans weren't in evidence.
We also have the fact that Anne of Neville was buried at Westminster Abbey. This isn't mentioned in the facebook article at all. Very, very, telling.
The evidence that is being quoted of Richard's great love for York seems to be that a lot of time was spent there, and money spent there. This seems to quite ignore the entirely reasonable alternate explanation that York was established as the centre of power in the north, Richard had effectively been ruling from there for some time. This in itself can justify the money and time spent at York compared to other locations, with requiring a personal affinity or a desire to be buried there.
Alison Hanham's research which questions whether or not Richard had an affinity for York at all has not even been mentioned in this thread of years long.
Reading DPS's post, it's quite clear that Richard III's 'desire to be buried at York' is being treated as dogma. Statements such as 'the truth will out', 'overwhelming evidence' etc. There isn't even strong evidence of this claimed desire. Arguments for this claim, even by claimed distinguished historians are highly selective, listing only the evidence for, and not the considerable evidence against. (Lack of a tomb, burial of his wife, question of whether or not Richard III did have a personal affinity for York). Ambiguous evidence is being interpreted as supporting only one side of the argument. E.g. that a large amount of money and more time was spent at York, when its position as an administrative/ruling centre of the north can equally explain this.
What we see from the pro-York faction is this over and over again. Careful selection of evidence. Completely hyperbolic evaluations of the strength of the 'scraps' of evidence that we have. Ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis. Outright lying. (pro-York facebook groups are still talking about the 'descendants' of Richard III even though there is absolutely no way that they can be unaware that there aren't any descendants of Richard III. It's intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. Evidence against this includes the fact that Richard III intended to be buried in Westminster Abbey, in particular that he buried his wife there.
If there was a strong argument that Richard III definitely wanted to be buried at York, then it would be out in the public view by now. There isn't any such evidence, no matter how desperately some people are to believe it.
And to prove, what exactly? That Richard III wanted to be buried in York? Even if this could be shown (and it hasn't by a long shot), then we have to remember that history is that Richard III was killed at Bosworth, and buried in Leicester. Now, 500 years later, Richard III's burial has been rediscovered and good archaeological/historical practice is being applied. He's being reburied in the nearest consecrated ground. A fundamental rule is being applied - you don't *&£$ with history. Pro-York people are so bizarrely obsessed with bringing him to York that they are prepared to run roughshod over history, to re-write it. Richard most likely wished to be buried at Westminster, but he wasn't. Even if there was strong evidence of his burial choices, what happened in history happened, and we as a culture are now sophisticated enough to realise this and not rewrite history. Some of us, anyhow.
The pro-York people were shot to pieces by the judicial review. But it won't matter. The pro-York people and groups are acting like a cult, and it will go on. As pointed out above, the beliefs are very strongly ingrained. DPS expresses frustration that his 'evidence' is ignored. What DPS doesn't realise is his/her degree of personal bias and desperation to believe means that DPS simply cannot understand that the 'strong' or even claimedly 'overwhelming' evidence is nothing of the sort. The judicial review should have been a serious wake-up call. But no, pro-York people are sitting around coming up with ever more bizarre delusions and supporting each other in them, leading them to drift further and further away from objective reality. It's like a UFO cult. Don't drink the kool-aid, folks.
What??? I've just been stopped in my tracks by this. What on earth makes you think that a modern monarch isn't subject to the same laws as everybody else??? To me, this small statement illustrates the unrealistic take on the whole thing.
Don't you remember when Princess Anne was done for speeding - or when she was prosecuted for her dog biting someone. The Royal Family are subject to the same Laws as the rest of us. Their blood isn't really blue you know - not unless they have porphyria, anyway!
..... ^^^
The only thing I can add to the three posts above, is that as a keen Historian (but R3 "virgin"), I've never come across a field of debate where the argument is so tainted or compromised, by advocates who quote from neither primary contemporary sources nor secondary scholarship - but works of fiction! Only the Tudors and perhaps the Civil War come anywhere close, but the Daughter of Time and its many derivatives have an awful lot to answer for.
DPS's obsessional and repetitive posts, and his inability to see the other side of an argument cannot be overcome. In another thread, it has transpired that he is ASD, and whilst clearly in possession of a brain, it's wired a little differently. I think we'll have to agree to differ with him.
If anybody thinks I'm going to read 218 pages in order to catch up on this thread, then think again.
Has somebody written a book in here somewhere?
In answer to the original thread topic. Dunno.
***I think he's a her btw. Just a point of info.
I beg her pardon, then. She still can't help her insistence on the subject. What Kappellmeister's excuse is I have no idea. Another bright guy, gone all weird on us.
Another 'she' I think
Maybe HRH authorised it, seeing as the Tudors nicked the throne.
I don't mind Kapellmeister - he's just taciturn and hates pretty much everything. This is one of his pet hates.
I have a soft spot for him though, and he can be very funny in an acerbic kind of way. His florid put-downs and hyperboles are so theatrical, you can't help but grin; he must know this, and he relishes it....
He can't stick me though, and has me on 'ignore' I think:D^_^
...Anyway we're veering off into talking about FMs now, which isn't all that conducive to the discussion!
No - Kapellmeister is a 'he'.
Again spot-on.
It is clear that many among the faction are incapable of being dispassionate with regards to this issue.
Some of the proclamations seem nearly driven by profound personal grief, which is ridiculous, considering the man died over 500 years ago.
One in which a lot of evidence which should have been presented, wasn't, and much of that which was, was ignored.
A further licence won't be needed - he's already been exhumed once, and his remains have to be kept scientifically available because of it. Once he's disinterred for further testing, it would be very easy to rebury him elsewhere, no paperwork required. And given the ease and routine with which licences are issued, a new licence would be just as obtainable if it did become necessary. On the grounds that he was buried in the wrong place, and not according to his own wishes. A person's wishes have to be taken into consideration, and if they weren't, a new licence could apply.
I find it strange that you talk as if judges always make the right decisions, and don't make mistakes. If you don't agree with this, then what's to say that they didn't get this decision wrong, if they do sometimes make mistakes? Because you agree with them on this occasion?
But when he was King, he didn't. For two years he didn't. Had he lived longer, yes, he would've had to have built connections with the south. But he didn't while he lived, and we'll never know how he would've treated the south if he'd lived longer. But it's a strong indicator that he had a preference for the north, in that he had two years to ingratiate himself with the south, and chose not to.
There's nothing to say that he had to operate out of London or the south. There were fears that he intended to officially move the capital to York, and had he lived, he may have done just that. So your assumption that his building the chantry and the other time he spent there must've been a farewell, is based on your unwillingness to believe otherwise.
How many cast considerable doubt over Leicester being an acceptable burial place for him? Most say York, and almost all say, not Leicester. Just because a few are unsure of where he may have chosen, doesn't prove that there's considerable doubt over Richard's intentions.
It's expert opinion based on the circumstantial evidence, and years of research.
Not in the slightest. I base my opinion on Margaret Beaufort rifling through Richard's belongings after Bosworth and taking his Book of Hours, and the very rapid disappearance of most of Richard's papers after Tudor became King.
Precisely. Richard was buried by his enemy in a Tudor stronghold (Leicester), in a location within a building that he couldn't easily be removed from because of this. As opposed to being returned to York by his family and buried in a place where thousands of people could see his tomb, and pay their respects. None of the Tudors would have allowed him to be returned to his home and buried with honour, that would have kept alive the risk of conflict, due to their weak claims to the throne, and the north's loyalty to Richard. Loyalty which had to be broken somehow, hence Tudor destroying as much of Richard's legacy as possible, blackening his name, and preventing him from having a tomb in York, which would have become a focal point for Richard's martyrdom.
But not all of them. Only what was presented. Much of which was ignored.
There are historians all over the country and in other countries who have said the same thing about Richard being buried in York. They can't possibly all have links to York and the north.
I refer you to my pointing out that judges aren't infallible, and sometimes make mistakes, as human beings tend to.
No, Richard's actions speak loudly enough. A huge addition to York Minster is hardly a secret. Unless you're suggesting that nobody would've noticed a giant new extention to a major cathedral? And why would there need to be a written account of Richard's intentions to move his wife and son? Not marking the graves of the two people he loved most, says it all.
A person who marries someone for practical or reasons of power, doesn't grieve the way Richard did when Anne died. There's an account of him weeping publically at her funeral, and his behaviour for the last few months of his life were those of someone who was very depressed, so clearly he loved her.
I don't subscribe to them having a modern romantic love. Far from it, I find all those romantic historical books about them something to be avoided. Not my cup of tea at all. I base my opinion on the way Richard was after Anne died. His grief was palpable.
Whether we know where Edward was buried or not is merely an interesting sideline, it has no bearing on whether or not his father intended to move him. Richard knew where his son was, and the fact that we don't shows that again, Richard didn't mark the grave.
Given the pomp and ceremony, time and effort Richard went to, to move his father's grave and rebury him properly, it's a strong indicator of why he didn't mark his wife and sons graves. It can only be because he meant to move them later, and give them proper tombs elsewhere.
My argument doesn't apply to Westminster, because if that was to be her final resting place, she would have only needed a tomb - the building was already there. Richard needed to construct the chantry in which to build a tomb at York, before he could move his family there. It would have been stupid to build the tombs first, bury his wife and son, and then construct a building around them. He could hardly have their graves located in the open air on a building site, could he? A tomb for her in Westminster would have only taken a few months at most, time which he had. Had he known that he was going to die later that year, he may well have built her a tomb there, if he'd thought that he wouldn't have been able to move her. But he didn't know that. He made no effort to build one, which strongly implies that he didn't mean her to stay there.
I hope that he's not found. It would be awful if Edward was subjected to the same treatment as his father.
The records of Westminster Abbey are silent on the child's coffin hidden behind a wall in Edward IV's grave too. Doesn't mean that there isn't somebody buried there. Not everything is recorded, and not all records survive over very long periods of time.
Please see post #5417.
No the evidence is circumstantial. His actions show his intentions.
He made very little effort to win over the south, he barely even tried. After Bosworth he may well have tried to build stronger connections to the south, but in the two years that he was King, he didn't. He chose to visit as many places as possible, and stop for as long as he could in York. Whether or not it was a sensible policy is irrelevant. He preferred the north through his own choice, and his actions show this.
If the rumours about him making York his capital were true, then of course he would have been buried there. Building the chantry could well have been the first major sign that he intended to do this, and had he lived, he may have ruled from the north, and not the south. I doubt the south would've been happy about it, and would've needed a lot more diplomacy to be won over afterwards. But their not liking such a situation doesn't prove that Richard wouldn't have done it. We'll never know.
No, it has nothing to do with his burial. But his favouring York for his coinage is another one of many connections he had with the north. As you say, there were other mints - if he wasn't particularly attatched to Yorkshire, then why didn't he choose a different mint? Or have several mints making different coins? Of course he would choose the one in the place that he preferred, especially if he was going to make York his own official capital.
If Richard only led the north because his brother wanted him to, then why didn't he keep his other estates? Why did he specifically trade them in for northern ones, if he was only there because he had to be? The north is very beautiful, there's no denying that, but there's no doubt that the better and richer farmlands are in the south, flatter ground for crops, and better pasture for animals. Surely it would have made more sense to keep his southern estates which he could accrue more profit from? But he chose to get rid of them for land in the north.
You like contemporary accounts - there's one which states that 'He was no taxer of the people, no oppressor of the commons (though he came to manage an estate whose treasure was exceedingly exhausted)'. Doesn't this suggest that his trading was for something that wouldn't profit him? Why would he make such a bad deal, unless he loved the northern lands, and wanted to have a greater stake in them? He loved the northern landscape so much, that he made a huge hole in one of the defensive walls of (I think it was) Barnard Castle, for a picture window so that he could look out upon it. (It may have been Bolton Castle, I don't quite recall.)
Edward IV had closer links to the south than the north, so of course he would choose to build his family mausoleum in the place that he felt was his home. Which is what Richard was doing. If he was most likely to have wanted to be buried in Westminster, then wouldn't he have begun constructing something suitable there, like his brother did? He was certainly constructing something akin to his brother's burial place - at York Minster.
He already had a strong legacy of fair rule and peace that would have more than been enough, and he'd have known that. Hence his rejecting money and offerings in various cities around the country when he was King. He stated that he 'would rather have their love than their treasure'. He knew that reputation and actions are the best way to ensure that people remembered him, and he was right - Yorkshire has remembered his legacy for over 500 years.
How could they have retrieved his body, when Henry Tudor made an effort to execute everyone who was still loyal to Richard after he was dead? The only ones who survived were those who offered no resistance to Tudor's rule. When he visited York, he took a large army with him as a show of power to anyone who may still oppose him. He was effectively threatening them. By the time the Tudors were all gone, efforts were made to retrieve Richard's body, but by then the story about him being dug up and thrown in the river Soar had been circulating for some time, and people thought that he was lost. How could he have been recovered then?
The same can be said about Leicester - if Leicester loves Richard so much, then how come nobody made any effort to locate him until now? Even though the council was shown evidence in the 1960's that his grave was there, nobody bothered to find him and move him then. There was only interest when it became apparent that having a King buried in Leicester Cathedral could be a money-spinner, and boost tourism in the city.
If you think that a future King Charles will rule the way his mother does, then you may be in for a surprise. He's known to get involved in whatever suits him, and there are concerns that he may continue to do so when he's King. Especially as he's been involving himself in various political matters for so long. Prince Charles is currently an unknown quantity, and we won't know how he'll behave until he's actually King.
And the constitution is fairly fluid, because it's not written. This makes it easy to change when needs be, as the government has recently for example, in changing the law over gender succession. Anything could happen, we won't know until the time comes. And even if he respects the constitution as it is, as you said, he can still encourage. He can encourage the government of the day to move his ancestor. As King, his wishes would have to be given serious consideration, and it could cause problems if he feels strongly about the situation, and they ignored him. Causing a rift between government and monarchy, would be unwise.
The foundations were already built at the time of his death. His surviving letters show that he was very concerned that the 100 priests that would pray for his and his family's souls were to be paid properly, and six of the altars had already been completed. The plans were well under way. Their existence is the evidence, and denying it won't make it go away.
Why would Anne Neville's burial be mentioned? The article is about Richard's plans, and whether or not he was doing what his brother was doing in building a chantry chapel for his own burial. The fact that his wife and son's graves weren't marked, and that he was negotiating a marriage to Joanna of Portugal at the time of his death, and would therefore have needed to ensure that his own burial place was sufficient for not only his first queen, but also his second, make it clear that a building the size of the chantry at York was to have a more important purpose. 100 priests to pray for his, and his family's souls?
It can also justify his possible intention to make York his capital, and rule from there. In which case, it's all the more likely that the chantry was for himself, and his family's mausoleum.
I have never heard of Alison Hanham. But there's plenty of research which supports his affinity for the north and York, and Richard's many connections and choices show that he did indeed have a love of the county.
If there aren't any collateral descendants of Richard's then where did the DNA to confirm the identity of his remains come from? Michael Ibsen is a collateral descendant, as are members of the Plantagenet Alliance, as well as many others who have not been DNA tested, but can prove their lineage. When most people state 'descendants', they're referring to descendants of Richard's siblings, not of him. But I suspect that you already know this, and are just picking on their abbreviating 'collateral descendants' to 'descendants', in order to have something else to criticise them for.
It is out in the public view, which is why there are thousands of people all over the world supporting his return to be buried in York.
Normal archaelogical practice should not apply here, as this is not a normal person, nor a normal situation. The rules weren't written with the expectation of finding someone of this importance, they were written for ordinary people, under circumstances that could happen over and over again. And archaelogical 'best practice' is an APABE guideline and isn't legally binding, so it doesn't have to be followed at all.
And if you shouldn't mess with history, then why aren't you criticising Leicester for trying airbrush Richard's Yorkshire connections out of his history? Why don't you criticise the Tudors and Shakespeare for branding Richard a child-murdering usurper, when there's no evidence of either of those things happening? History is always written by the winners, but that doesn't mean that it's the truth. It should be changed if the truth is uncovered. Now that Richard has been found (and wasn't lost in the Soar), he can be returned to his home for reburial.
If at some point someone finds a surviving copy of Richard's will, and it states clearly in his own handwriting that the chantry was to be his mausoleum, and he wanted to be buried in York Minster, would you continue to insist that 'history shouldn't be messed with', and he should stay in Leicester?
You accuse me of personal bias, and don't consider the possibility that you have a personal bias for Leicester?
If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. But to accuse me of bias just because I disagree with you, is hypocritical. And to accuse the York supporters of being a delusional cult just because they're standing up for what they believe in, says rather more about you than it does about them.
As I've said, nobody knows what's going to happen when Prince Charles is King. And nobody knows whether or not future governments/judges/Ministers/etc, may agree with him. He may be subject to the law, but the law can be changed, laws are changed all the time. Don't make the mistake in assuming that just because the law currently allows Richard to be buried in Leicester, that this will always be the case. Time will tell.
My thoughts exactly. Look around you with all the problems we have today/currently in the UK and elsewhere around the world, and people are writing thesis's on where somebody who snuffed it 529 years ago should be buried. I'll deal with the problem. Dump the bones off the back of a boat somewhere in the English Channel.
I bet if you asked 100 immigrants who Richard III was, the vast majority would go 'Richard who?'. And I suspect a substantial number of 'native' (young) people living today in the UK will also have never heard of him. However, they'll tell you anything and everything you need to know about an iPhone for example, OTOH.
Where on earth did you get that idea? All human remains which are to be moved require a licence. Just because someone has already been moved once doesn't make any difference.
Both the University of Leicester and the Cathedral have stated categorically that there are no plans to disinter him. All material used for the current round of testing will be interred with him.
A person's wishes are only taken into account if we know what they were.
Please give me the source for the fears that Richard intended officially to move the capital to York.
It you think about it, it is a perfectly logical course of action. Richard had been sent to the north by his brother to sort it out. He expected to be there for years - he did not expect to become king, for example. In addition, his wife had inherited significant northern estates. It made sense to consolidate his own lands (some of which actually belonged to the Crown and were only granted for as long as the king wished them to be) in the same area. It certainly made more sense than having many different parcels of land scattered throughout the entire country.