I've posted a few times on this thread but i've known for some time that you can't reason with prejudice and bigotry so these are my final thoughts.
1) The Find - No one really, apart from a few members of the Richard III society actually believed they would find him. The University of Leicester did a fantastic job, but as experts in their area they had reasons to be sceptical. Leicester City Council deserve some credit for providing a element of funding and in taking a risk in letting the dig go ahead when....
2) The Media - Lets be honest when this all started they all gathered to have a bit of a snigger at some kooky Ricardians and a few academic types digging up a social services car park only to find a few bits of hardcore. Anyone who watched the Channel 4 documentary the other night could tell the whole thing was set up to be a "Mockumentary" all about "Crazy Phillipa", hence the lack of any real science. As it turned out "Crazy Phillipa" wasn't that crazy after all.
3) York - I've nothing against York, been there a few times and it's a fine city. I could go on about the lack of effort the city has shown in locating one of their favourite sons for 500 years but I understand there are reasons, Lancastrians on the throne, body snatching not exactly being the done thing, passage of time, maybe the Tudor propaganda didn't make him such a great find etc. What does get me is they made no attempt to get involved on this whole project and after realising the horse had bolted on Monday morning the city council decides to go on this shameless face saving sabre rattling media offensive to try and appease the natives who are quite rightly questioning why there was no involvement from the start. Richard may deserve York, but York certainly doesn't deserve Richard.
4) Leicester - Lets face the elephant in the room - the true title of this thread is "Is such a Ethnic City a fitting resting place for a English King?". The thinly veiled and uninformed prejudice, bigotry and racism in this thread has been disgusting. Our city has come a long way since we took out adverts in the 1970's telling prospective immigrants that the city was full to bursting point and not to come to Leicester. We've never had race riots like a lot of other cities and we all tend to get along. I've got friends in this city from all faiths and i'm proud of that fact.
At the moment it looks like Leicester Cathedral will be his final resting place. The city of Leicester will welcome you with open arms but please leave whatever prejudices you have at home.
OK, lets talk about the "elephant in the room" without the discussion being proclaimed "prejudiced. bigoted or racist" before it's even started.
I think you are correct, there is a feeling of unease about Richard 3 being buried in a city famous for being likely to be the first city with a non English ethnic majority.
But why does it follow that it's a bigoted opinion without merit, that a king of England, an England that no longer exists in Leicester, should be buried more in keeping with the realm they ruled?
Amongst the descendants of the people they ruled?
This discussion reminds me of the fuss about Pocahontas being buried in Gravesend.
There have been moves by native Americans that her body should be removed and brought back to the tribal(?) lands.
I'd like to see the same people calling people here "prejudiced, bigoted and racist" call the native Americans the same.
So much dishonesty going on.
It's no more honest talking about "the elephant in the room" and then making it clear that should anybody actually talk about "the elephant in the room" they will be insulted and branded if they do.
They should bury him in York, he was born there, and was a very proud Yorkshireman, so it's only fair for his final resting place to be in York, not a third rate Museum in Leicester.
I don't see why not. I'm sure talks would have been held to discuss the matter. Leicester has a long and varied history anyway, so they've no need to cling onto anything.
Then you've not seen the gloating cries of 'Finders keepers losers weepers' that have filled the internet since the discovery was confirmed.
Most people believe so. I think one thing is undeniable: Richard III would never have wanted to be buried in Leicester. Everything else should come from that one point. The University of Leicester has absolutely no moral right to make such an important decision by itself.
Anyway, clearly there is little chance of anything other than a burial in Leicester's parish church. I just hope and pray that it's all a total fiasco and that the council spends millions on an 'interpretation centre' that no-one visits. After all, few go to Peterborough with the sole intention of visiting the grave of Catherine of Aragon or go to Winchester to visit Jane Austen's grave. I doubt many people will visit Leicester with the sole intention of gawping at a plaque on the floor of a Victorian parish church where Richard III is buried, especially after the initial furore has died away.
Utterly bizarre. You're taking this far too personally.
OK, lets talk about the "elephant in the room" without the discussion being proclaimed "prejudiced. bigoted or racist" before it's even started.
I think you are correct, there is a feeling of unease about Richard 3 being buried in a city famous for being likely to be the first city with a non English ethnic majority.
But why does it follow that it's a bigoted opinion without merit, that a king of England, an England that no longer exists in Leicester, should be buried more in keeping with the realm they ruled?
Amongst the descendants of the people they ruled?
This discussion reminds me of the fuss about Pocahontas being buried in Gravesend.
There have been moves by native Americans that her body should be removed and brought back to the tribal(?) lands.
I'd like to see the same people calling people here "prejudiced, bigoted and racist" call the native Americans the same.
So much dishonesty going on.
It's no more honest talking about "the elephant in the room" and then making it clear that should anybody actually talk about "the elephant in the room" they will be insulted and branded if they do.
Thank you! I've already been called a racist Nazi on this thread but you've made the point better than I could've done.
How is not wanting Richard III to be buried in a muslim city any different to the repatriation of skulls and other bones to the indigenous tribes of Australia? For the aborigines the remains have social, cultural, historical and religious significance. The remains of Richard III (for me at least) also have enormous historical and cultural importance.
I'm not talking about what Leicester is like now but what it will be like in 100 or 200 years time. I want the remains of Richard III somewhere that was important to him as well as somewhere that respects and understands English history, just like the aborigines want their cultural artifacts located somewhere that is important to them.
Despite the cries of denial on here, I just don't for a moment believe that English medieval history is remotely significant to generations of Pakistanis. Why would it be? I have no interest in Pakistan's history.
Thank you! I've already been called a racist Nazi on this thread but you've made the point better than I could've done.
How is not wanting Richard III to be buried in a muslim city any different to the repatriation of skulls and other bones to the indigenous tribes of Australia? For the aborigines the remains have social, cultural, historical and religious significance. The remains of Richard III (for me at least) also have enormous historical and cultural importance.
I'm not talking about what Leicester is like now but what it will be like in 100 or 200 years time. I want the remains of Richard III somewhere that was important to him as well as somewhere that respects and understands English history, just like the aborigines want their cultural artifacts located somewhere that is important to them.
Despite the cries of denial on here, I just don't for a moment believe that English medieval history is remotely significant to generations of Pakistanis. Why would it be? I have no interest in Pakistan's history. It's not a question of race. It would be the same if the Leicester was going to be 90% or 95% Polish or Algerian.
How do you know that York isn't going to become a "muslim city" as you put it?
What happens then - dig him up again and move him to the next Christian stronghold?
How is not wanting Richard III to be buried in a muslim city any different to the repatriation of skulls and other bones to the indigenous tribes of Australia? I want the remains of Richard III somewhere that was important to him as well as somewhere that respects and understands English history, just like the aborigines want their cultural artifacts located somewhere that is important to them.
I'll just do what I've always done - go to Middleham.:D
I pass York Minster all the time and never get bored of it. I would definitely have gone in there to see his grave (have a York card so it's free anyways) but would not go out of my way to go to it if its in some dive in the Midlands.:D
Leicester Museum has stuff I'm meant to be documenting for my work at some point, but when I go it will be a straightforward case of into museum, see stuff, out again - get the hell out of that county.
Their attempt at a visitor centre would not be dependent on the burial being there, really. It kind of reminds me of that Titanic place in Belfast. Something a bit sick about it.
I don't but it's less likely within the next couple of centuries than Leicester.
Since medieval times, York's streets have rung to the sounds of different languages from all over the world. We're pretty cosmopolitan.:D
The joke is, it wouldn't particularly increase our tourist trade as the big spenders (Japanese and Yanks) go on a very proscribed set 'tour' as a rule, with York often being the second stop off after the Tower of London, and before the Lake District.:D I don't think anyone who lives here cares one jot about adding to our tourists. We have plenty.
Leicester might get 12 or 13 extra visitors a year, which to them is probably huge.;)
I'll just do what I've always done - go to Middleham.:D
I pass York Minster all the time and never get bored of it. I would definitely have gone in there to see his grave (have a York card so it's free anyways) but would not go out of my way to go to it if its in some dive in the Midlands.:D
Leicester Museum has stuff I'm meant to be documenting for my work at some point, but when I go it will be a straightforward case of into museum, see stuff, out again - get the hell out of that county.
Their attempt at a visitor centre would not be dependent on the burial being there, really. It kind of reminds me of that Titanic place in Belfast. Something a bit sick about it.
I lived in York for four years, many years ago when I was at the university, and went into the Minster every time I was in the city centre. I went up the central tower frequently and saw the bells being rung in the western bell towers. York remains one of a tiny handful of places where English urban history is visual and tangible. It's why 100,000s of tourists go there annually. Despite my interest in Richard III (I was named after him by my mother) I wouldn't ever visit the parish church in Leicester where he will be buried, mostly out of principle. It feels like yet another betrayal.
And I agree about the visitor centre. I think (hope) it'll prove to be a massive millstone around the council's neck. There just isn't enough, apart from the slab on the floor, to draw people to Leicester.
Your post is utterly misguided in almost every way. i have listed numerous historical, architectural and social reasons why Leicester is unsuitable as a location for the reburial. If you choose to focus only on the social aspect then that is your concern but don't pretend that is my only concern.
Leicester HAS ruined its own history. What is there to deny? Many English cities have done the same thing. Have you walked down Charles Street recently or St George's Street, or a dozen others. The place is an eyesore and would be on no-one's list of 'must visit'
Well if all you had done is listed historical, architectural and social reasons to advance your argument then I don't think anyone would have any issue with you. However your posts appear to have increasingly descended into the ridiculous, inane ramblings of a bitter bigot. I'm afraid there is no simpler way of putting it. Perhaps you should take some time to read back your posts and see how your thin veneer of facts is strongly permeated by a rhetoric of hate, ignorance and bigotry. Yes I have walked down Charles Street and St George's Street recently-it looks like most other city centre's in the UK to me. Nothing to write home about granted but I'm not sure what lies within to stir up such strong emotions in you. It is sheer ignorance on your part to presume that the many different cultures that co-exist within Leicester have no understanding of English/ British history. If you took the trouble to speak to the people in Leicester you might be surprised at the pride they have in the city and it's history-far more so than some of the "indigenous" population in many cases. I'm also not clear why you think Leicester has ruined its own history; hasn't the city just helped make history? Leicester isn't that desperate for tourism either. It has two successful Universities, one of Europe's most successful Rugby teams and a football team that looks as if it is on its way back to the Premier League. Besides which Leicester has one of the world's largest Diwali celebrations outside of India. Plenty of tourism there don't you think? Besides which, any city would seek to take advantage of additional tourism in such circumstances; it would be remiss of a City Mayor not to do so don't you think? Just don't ever suppose for one minute that the city is desperate though.
You perpetually substitute "fact" for opinion in your posts and I think people see your arguments for what they are: a thinly disguised attempt to premise a bigoted, slanted view of the world on a list of common arguments that have been repeated elsewhere on the Internet over the past week or so. So don't for one minute think that your protestations about defending the right of York to house the remains of Richard are believed because it has become clear to see what fuels your anger and vitriolic attacks. Many others have advanced their case for York far more eloquently and forcefully than you. Give someone enough rope they say; well I think you've been given enough to stretch from York to Leicester and back! I can't quite determine what your connections to Leicester are and what experiences you may have had there to generate the attitude you have. Needless to say, I don't think that the people of Leicester will lose much sleep over it.
Despite my interest in Richard III (I was named after him by my mother) I wouldn't ever visit the parish church in Leicester where he will be buried, mostly out of principle. It feels like yet another betrayal. .
"Cutting your nose off to spite your face" seems apt.
"Cutting your nose off to spite your face" seems apt.
Not really. For 500 years there was nothing to visit and I have no intention of putting anything in Leicester's coffers. I couldn't stand going to that parish church knowing that the remains should be in a Gothic cathedral, like most other kings and queens of England.
Ah no point going if it's in Leicester (and I have been there many many MANY times having in laws down the road from there). Like I say, when I have to go for work soon, I will be in and out of the relevant place in double quick time.
Nothing wrong with Middleham. Nice day out in the Dales.
What is so obviously going to happen with their visitor centre is - kids from the E. Midlands will go on school trips. Leicester council will probably have to subsidise those trips anyway - so end up out of pocket.:D
Not really. For 500 years there was nothing to visit and I have no intention of putting anything in Leicester's coffers. I couldn't stand going to that parish church knowing that the remains should be in a Gothic cathedral, like most other kings and queens of England.
Certainly sounds like it. If you were as interested in Richard as you claim, you'd want to go regardless.
Just seems a daft principle to cling on to when you are missing out.
I hope if I get buried in the wrong place I still get the odd visitor. Be a bit miffed if they don't fancy the post code of the landfill I've been tossed into and stay at home to watch Emmerdale instead
Not really. For 500 years there was nothing to visit and I have no intention of putting anything in Leicester's coffers. I couldn't stand going to that parish church knowing that the remains should be in a Gothic cathedral, like most other kings and queens of England.
You know what, I think a (decent) parish church with a bit of history to it wouldn't be bad - say somewhere like Middleham, or Sheriff Hutton where his son is.
It's not that it is a cathedral (although it might be hard to think of a monarch who isn't buried somewhere important - and let's face it, Leicester in terms of history is not important). More that it is a beautiful place that is commensurate, historically.
I wouldn't visit it either. Purely down to where it is, not out of some sense of outrage. It would be depressing - in fact the municipal car park might be preferable as from what I can see, (having zero memory of this 'cathedral') it is a slightly less interesting structure than the car park was.:)
Comments
OK, lets talk about the "elephant in the room" without the discussion being proclaimed "prejudiced. bigoted or racist" before it's even started.
I think you are correct, there is a feeling of unease about Richard 3 being buried in a city famous for being likely to be the first city with a non English ethnic majority.
But why does it follow that it's a bigoted opinion without merit, that a king of England, an England that no longer exists in Leicester, should be buried more in keeping with the realm they ruled?
Amongst the descendants of the people they ruled?
This discussion reminds me of the fuss about Pocahontas being buried in Gravesend.
There have been moves by native Americans that her body should be removed and brought back to the tribal(?) lands.
I'd like to see the same people calling people here "prejudiced, bigoted and racist" call the native Americans the same.
So much dishonesty going on.
It's no more honest talking about "the elephant in the room" and then making it clear that should anybody actually talk about "the elephant in the room" they will be insulted and branded if they do.
After reading this thread, I think Leicester is the best place
Then you've not seen the gloating cries of 'Finders keepers losers weepers' that have filled the internet since the discovery was confirmed.
I signed this yesterday when signatures were at 4,000. Today it is 14,000. No comment - up to you.
Utterly bizarre. You're taking this far too personally.
Anyway, I'll visit.
Thank you! I've already been called a racist Nazi on this thread but you've made the point better than I could've done.
How is not wanting Richard III to be buried in a muslim city any different to the repatriation of skulls and other bones to the indigenous tribes of Australia? For the aborigines the remains have social, cultural, historical and religious significance. The remains of Richard III (for me at least) also have enormous historical and cultural importance.
I'm not talking about what Leicester is like now but what it will be like in 100 or 200 years time. I want the remains of Richard III somewhere that was important to him as well as somewhere that respects and understands English history, just like the aborigines want their cultural artifacts located somewhere that is important to them.
Despite the cries of denial on here, I just don't for a moment believe that English medieval history is remotely significant to generations of Pakistanis. Why would it be? I have no interest in Pakistan's history.
Some people feel strongly about these things *shrug*
How do you know that York isn't going to become a "muslim city" as you put it?
What happens then - dig him up again and move him to the next Christian stronghold?
I just find this attitude strange.
I don't but it's less likely within the next couple of centuries than Leicester.
I pass York Minster all the time and never get bored of it. I would definitely have gone in there to see his grave (have a York card so it's free anyways) but would not go out of my way to go to it if its in some dive in the Midlands.:D
Leicester Museum has stuff I'm meant to be documenting for my work at some point, but when I go it will be a straightforward case of into museum, see stuff, out again - get the hell out of that county.
Their attempt at a visitor centre would not be dependent on the burial being there, really. It kind of reminds me of that Titanic place in Belfast. Something a bit sick about it.
That's the sort of short term thinking that did for King Rich. You need to be thinking a bit longer term than that.
What about Antarctica? Them Muslims don't seem to be mad keen on setting up shop there.
To the boats!
To be honest, you're coming across like a religious fanatic.
Since medieval times, York's streets have rung to the sounds of different languages from all over the world. We're pretty cosmopolitan.:D
The joke is, it wouldn't particularly increase our tourist trade as the big spenders (Japanese and Yanks) go on a very proscribed set 'tour' as a rule, with York often being the second stop off after the Tower of London, and before the Lake District.:D I don't think anyone who lives here cares one jot about adding to our tourists. We have plenty.
Leicester might get 12 or 13 extra visitors a year, which to them is probably huge.;)
It may well do.
But the body is unburied now so it makes sense to deal with the now.
I lived in York for four years, many years ago when I was at the university, and went into the Minster every time I was in the city centre. I went up the central tower frequently and saw the bells being rung in the western bell towers. York remains one of a tiny handful of places where English urban history is visual and tangible. It's why 100,000s of tourists go there annually. Despite my interest in Richard III (I was named after him by my mother) I wouldn't ever visit the parish church in Leicester where he will be buried, mostly out of principle. It feels like yet another betrayal.
And I agree about the visitor centre. I think (hope) it'll prove to be a massive millstone around the council's neck. There just isn't enough, apart from the slab on the floor, to draw people to Leicester.
Well if all you had done is listed historical, architectural and social reasons to advance your argument then I don't think anyone would have any issue with you. However your posts appear to have increasingly descended into the ridiculous, inane ramblings of a bitter bigot. I'm afraid there is no simpler way of putting it. Perhaps you should take some time to read back your posts and see how your thin veneer of facts is strongly permeated by a rhetoric of hate, ignorance and bigotry. Yes I have walked down Charles Street and St George's Street recently-it looks like most other city centre's in the UK to me. Nothing to write home about granted but I'm not sure what lies within to stir up such strong emotions in you. It is sheer ignorance on your part to presume that the many different cultures that co-exist within Leicester have no understanding of English/ British history. If you took the trouble to speak to the people in Leicester you might be surprised at the pride they have in the city and it's history-far more so than some of the "indigenous" population in many cases. I'm also not clear why you think Leicester has ruined its own history; hasn't the city just helped make history? Leicester isn't that desperate for tourism either. It has two successful Universities, one of Europe's most successful Rugby teams and a football team that looks as if it is on its way back to the Premier League. Besides which Leicester has one of the world's largest Diwali celebrations outside of India. Plenty of tourism there don't you think? Besides which, any city would seek to take advantage of additional tourism in such circumstances; it would be remiss of a City Mayor not to do so don't you think? Just don't ever suppose for one minute that the city is desperate though.
You perpetually substitute "fact" for opinion in your posts and I think people see your arguments for what they are: a thinly disguised attempt to premise a bigoted, slanted view of the world on a list of common arguments that have been repeated elsewhere on the Internet over the past week or so. So don't for one minute think that your protestations about defending the right of York to house the remains of Richard are believed because it has become clear to see what fuels your anger and vitriolic attacks. Many others have advanced their case for York far more eloquently and forcefully than you. Give someone enough rope they say; well I think you've been given enough to stretch from York to Leicester and back! I can't quite determine what your connections to Leicester are and what experiences you may have had there to generate the attitude you have. Needless to say, I don't think that the people of Leicester will lose much sleep over it.
Not really. For 500 years there was nothing to visit and I have no intention of putting anything in Leicester's coffers. I couldn't stand going to that parish church knowing that the remains should be in a Gothic cathedral, like most other kings and queens of England.
Nothing wrong with Middleham. Nice day out in the Dales.
What is so obviously going to happen with their visitor centre is - kids from the E. Midlands will go on school trips. Leicester council will probably have to subsidise those trips anyway - so end up out of pocket.:D
Just seems a daft principle to cling on to when you are missing out.
You know what, I think a (decent) parish church with a bit of history to it wouldn't be bad - say somewhere like Middleham, or Sheriff Hutton where his son is.
It's not that it is a cathedral (although it might be hard to think of a monarch who isn't buried somewhere important - and let's face it, Leicester in terms of history is not important). More that it is a beautiful place that is commensurate, historically.
I wouldn't visit it either. Purely down to where it is, not out of some sense of outrage. It would be depressing - in fact the municipal car park might be preferable as from what I can see, (having zero memory of this 'cathedral') it is a slightly less interesting structure than the car park was.:)