"Simple slab for RIchard III" Topic

link

Its going to be a crowded venue…..

Hmmm, how long before someone breaks in, steals the remeains and reinters them in York?

How 'bout *NEW* York?

Under "York Street" station of the subway (er, "Tube") in Brooklyn!

After all, rumor has it that the current Royals have large property holdings in the city AND folks in the NYC Borough of Brooklyn are noted for their acceptance of notorious losers!

that's rather sad they should bury Him as a king.

It's getting a little nasty now as the Dean of York who is responsible for York Minster, whose last job was at Leicester Cathedral and who went on to say that the Minster did not want Richard's remains is getting hate mail.

I think she has behaved wrongly and dishonourably, she should have declared her connections with Leicester and remained neutral, allowing her second in command to deal with the matter. That said, sending hate mail is going too far. I believe Richard should be buried in York Minster but I don't think there'll be many people here in York who will condone that kind of behavior.

Seems she has little regard for local sensibilities. Agree about the hatemail of course.

Any idea of her logic?

I say put him back under the car park and put the burial slab in the tarmac to mark the spot….

Bury him in York.

THen at the spot they found him, have a statue of the Perry's fine piece of him coming out of the car park.

So, howzabout putting him under some staircase in The Tower?

Seemed to work for two boys he knew….

TVAG

Seems she has little regard for local sensibilities. Agree about the hatemail of course.

Any idea of her logic?

No I don't know what she must've been thinking of, I would expect she has lost some friends in the York Anglican hierarchy over it and as York is second only to Canterbury perhaps she hasn't done her career any good either. Then again maybe the Archbishopric of York will want rid of her and she'll get shuffled "upstairs" to Canterbury. Who knows?

Anyway I'd better not say any more, going too far down the path of religious discussion is a sure way to start an argument and nobody wants that. I just thought you guys might be interested in an update.

Here's the link from our local paper BTW; link

Second for under the stairs in the tower.

Cheers Alan.

By Brooklyn, you mean Kings County, right?

As York has no legal claim on the remains, what the Dean said is irrelevant.

My point entirely; there is no room in Leicester Cathedral for a raised royal tomb. Hence my suggestion published in the Leicester Mercury of consecrating the Magazine Gateway as a Royal Chapel of Rest…

The existing memorial stone is attractive, & the new stone will doubtless be fine.

It isn't a "done deal" though Steve. There is a possibility of a legal challenge and the York Central and Outer York MPs seem to be getting involved.

link

It may come to nothing and to be honest I don't want to ignite the debate on TMP again, I thought I would post these links to update everyone. Does York have no legal claim? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. It may be that we don't, then again maybe Leicester's claim isn't as strong as it thinks. Let the lawyers, academics, MPs and clergy sort it out.

Richard himself, iirc extended St Georges Chapel in Windsor to accommodate his brother Edward, Henry VI and himself and new Queen – whoever that turned out to be.

The first two made it, organised by Richard.

Richard himself got the booby prize of burial in bits in a cheap part of Leicester with a dodgy memorial paid for by his nemesis. Such is the way things were done in 15thC England. Winner takes all, loser is lucky if he isnt placed on several city gates somewhere.

York didnt feature at all in any of the plans, so I dont see it as being at all relevant for any King of England.

The modern rationale for Leicester is well known and quite valid.

Richard was building a chantry chapel in York Minster at the time of his death which is acknowledged by experts and academics as being his intended resting place. His many other connections to York are well documented.

At this point I am going to bow out of this debate as it's going to go over the same old ground again. If anything else of interest appears in York's media I will post a link.

Regards
Alan

the only fair thing to do is to settle this on the field of battle. now I'm not suggesting an actual war but that a game between Leicester City F.C. and Leeds United should fight it out on the pitch.

Despite saying I am bowing out of the debate I'm going to allow myself this as it's not directly connected to Richard's remains.

York has a professional football team too, we play in League 2 which is two leagues below Leeds and Leicester and having just got promoted out of the Blue Square Premier League (the non-league division immediately below the Football League proper) after being relegated there a few years ago we seem to be doing our level best to relegate ourselves back there again. It's not like watching Inter Milan at the San Siro!

My commiserations Alan, for the footie. I have to say I respected the Leicester internment decision, but then the recent header stone announcement was just a 'face-hits-desk' moment. Sort of critical fumble by Leicester people in my book. Despite the history or supposed history of the character, he was a King, and he deserves a better monument.

Still, as you say, possibly Blue Fez, but thanks for the news updates, much appreciated.

As promised further news on the Richard The Third saga.

Descendants of his family are seeking a judicial review into the decision to bury him in Leicester Cathedral. They want him buried in York Minster. Here's the link to our local paper; link

It's no secret I think he should be buried here in York but I don't really want to open the debate again, I just want to keep those of you who are interested up to date. If I see anything more that is relevant I'll be sure to post it.

Sorry about the deleted postings BTW. The TMP bug made an appearance.

Not even a horse?

No Uesugi, no horse… allegedly he tried to give up his kingdom for one, so he simply doesn't deserve one.

As for his relatives, his nearest living relative is his great x15-niece, Her Majesty the Queen, descended from his eldest brother Edward IV. Surely she should decide, rather than descendants of Richard's sister who are a generation further away – especially as she's also the head of the Church of England.

Why should an Anglican have a say over where a Roman Catholic is buried?

And why are people arguing over where the body of a murderer should be buried?

The Church of England is Catholic – but not Roman Catholic. Anyway, I'm just suggesting that Richard III's closest living relative should decide his funeral arrangements – murderer or not (and all kings of that era were murderers).

The Church of England is kind of moderate Protestant I'd say. There's no Confession, no prayers to Mary and the Pope is not the head of the Church. There still remains a lot of "High Church" atmosphere and ritual and I think Anglican views vary on Transubstantiation during the Eucharist which is whether or not the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ as Roman Catholics believe.

Many people, including myself, don't believe he was a child murderer though I don't for one minute believe he was anything other than a man of his times and he behaved accordingly. He certainly damaged the Duke of Somerset's career prospects after the battle of Tewkesbury!

Richard murdered lots of people, sometimes judicially or quasi-judicially – Rivers, Hastings, probably his brother George. The case of his nephews is "not proven" at best.

But of course other contemporary kings carried out plenty of murders too. Even Henry VI; prisoners taken at St Albans in 1461 were killed in his presence.

Rivers and Hastings were almost certainly involved in a plot against him, George was executed for treason in the reign of Edward IV and only Edward would have had the authority to order George's execution. I find it hard to believe that Richard would have ordered George's killing of his own accord and without express instructions from his brother the king to have him killed. It would be usurping Edward's authority and therefore an act of treason.

That said, was Richard a paragon of saintliness and forebearance? I very much doubt it. He would have seen what happened to Henry VI who was a gentle, kind and forgiving soul who ended up being put to death in the Tower after Tewkesbury so Richard would have made sure that those who wished him harm were swiftly put out of the way. But the judicial execution of men who would happily have done the same to him given half a chance and were in fact actively plotting to do so is not murder in my view and it certainly isn't infanticide.

It was the seven year old Edward of Lancaster who ordered the execution of Lord Bonville and Sir Thomas Kyriel after 2nd St Albans, encouraged by his mother Margaret of Anjou. Compared to that, perhaps Richard doesn't look so bad after all.

"Rivers and Hastings were almost certainly involved in a plot against him,"

Interesting pov. Rivers and his clan were certainly up to something. And quite frankly they come across as a nasty lot. Especially the mother. But Hastings was the guy who tipped Richard off about the Woodvilles and got him down to London to intercept the early coronation. He seems to be very loyal to Edward's offspring, as he was to Edward himself. Morton/More suggest that it was Hastings refusal to go along with Richard's proposed coup that determined his immediate death next day. This was done without recourse to trial.

"George was executed for treason in the reign of Edward IV and only Edward would have had the authority to order George's execution."

Yes, and George had previous form in that respect and repeatedly forgiven. Once he actually went over the Lancastrians. He was forgiven more than once. Hicks' biography of Richard suggests that George was flapping his mouth about Edward IVs previous marriage, bigamy and illegitimate children; he had to go. Edward simply ran out of patience, and spurred on no doubt by the Woodville faction. Richard put up token protest to George's execution. Stillington was similarly imprisoned, told to keep his mouth shut and only released after a heavy fine. Later of course, after Edward died he seems to have got his own back by telling the tale again, and caused a whole load of trouble.

"the only fair thing to do is to settle this on the field of battle"

I'll see if Harry Hill is available………

"Rivers and Hastings were almost certainly involved in a plot against him,"

Interesting pov. Rivers and his clan were certainly up to something. And quite frankly they come across as a nasty lot. Especially the mother. But Hastings was the guy who tipped Richard off about the Woodvilles and got him down to London to intercept the early coronation. He seems to be very loyal to Edward's offspring, as he was to Edward himself. Morton/More suggest that it was Hastings refusal to go along with Richard's proposed coup that determined his immediate death next day. This was done without recourse to trial.

"George was executed for treason in the reign of Edward IV and only Edward would have had the authority to order George's execution."

Yes, and George had previous form in that respect and had been repeatedly forgiven. Once he actually went over to the Lancastrians. He was forgiven more than once. Hicks' biography of Richard suggests that George was flapping his mouth about Edward IVs previous marriage, bigamy and illegitimate children; he had to go. Edward simply ran out of patience, and spurred on no doubt by the Woodville faction. Richard put up token protest to George's execution. Stillington was similarly imprisoned, told to keep his mouth shut and only released after a heavy fine. Later of course, after Edward died he seems to have got his own back by telling the tale again, and caused a whole load of trouble.

Richard was certainly no saint, but he was no worse than Edward IV, and much better, imho, than all of the Tudors. Henry VII wiped out the residual Yorkists wholesale, and even those whon had helped put him on the throne. Nasty piece of work. His second lad, of course was famous for being an absolute git.

Not a nice time. And the worst ones were all related to each other!

Re York Chancelry, Richard gave a no. of benefits and donatives to the area, including tax remissions. He also gave to other cities, churches and universities. He expressly extended St Georges for burial of his Brother, himself, and Henry VI whom he liked and considered a great ruler. He was actively looking for a second wife before the first had gone, and that 2nd wife was also destined to a Roayl burial in St Georges. He even had the spot marked out!

Re Protestant church, the Anglican Credo tp this day states "I believe in one Catholic and Apostelic Church"…. QED.!!

"the only fair thing to do is to settle this on the field of battle"

I'll see if Harry Hill is available………

The lack of real evidence either way is what makes this such an interesting period ripe with speculation and opinion. For me, Sleazy Buckingham and Misery-guts Henry VII are at least as likely as Richard to have done in the Princes. The Woodvilles definitely had to go to preserve Richard's long term health, but for the rest, Richard could have achieved so much more by keeping Edward V going, keeping Hastings loyalty, and giving Stillington 12" of British steel.

This story will run and run. You couldnt make this stuff up.

1815Guy: I agree with all of that, except

Sleazy Buckingham and Misery-guts Henry VII are at least as likely as Richard to have done in the Princes.

. Richard must surely remain the prime suspect, though by no means convicted.

Yes, he could have been a secure and respected Regent, until Edward V came of age – then, who knows?

Thanks John, and yes, that is what makes the period so fascinating. Who really can say for sure in any of those points you make.

It was not a good time in our history to make investments in pensions!!! :o)

One lot of psychopaths killing another – no loss.
At least Henry VII made the crown profitable for a while. He really only polished off people who were trying to depose/kill him. Pretty lenient compared with what had gone before.

Here's an update on the Richard III burial situation. It was announced on Radio York this morning that the Plantagenet Alliance, a pressure group consisting of descendants of Richard's family, have succeeded in obtaining a Judicial Review into the decision to bury Richard in Leicester. They believe he should be buried here in York.

It was a very brief report, that's all there was to it. If I find out any more details I'll post them here.

If anywhere other than Leicester, Windsor should be the venue, as originally intended by Richard, buried with his homies and in the family extension they built there.

Toss a coin

He should be laid to rest at Middleham

If anywhere other than Leicester, Windsor should be the venue, as originally intended by Richard, buried with his homies and in the family extension they built there

I would imagine that the Plantagenet Alliance have proved at least a prima facie case that Richard expressed a desire to be buried in York otherwise they would not have been awarded a Judicial Review, a very expensive and serious legal hearing not given out lightly.

Richard's family are not buried entirely at Windsor. His wife is resting in Westminster Abbey, his son just outside York at Sheriff Hutton. His brother Clarence rests in Tewkesbury Abbey.

We will see what happens in due course.

Seeing as he was King of England, and much of the tarnish to his reputation was Twdyr propaganda, why not inter him with other descendants of Edward III – in Westminster Abbey?

You mean like his sons:
Edward (the Black Prince) – Canterbury
William of Hatfield – York Minster
Lionel of Antwerp – Clare Priory Suffolk
John of Gaunt – St Paul's
Edmund of Langley – King's Langley
?
Okay – Thomas of Woodstock made it to the Abbey – but Richard II had him smothered in Calais first. (what is it about English King's called Richard? I= absent feckless psychopath, II= sneaky murdering psychopath, III child murdering psychopath – you know I think I'm spotting a theme here!)

Okay – Thomas of Woodstock made it to the Abbey – but Richard II had him smothered in Calais first. (what is it about English King's called Richard? I= absent feckless psychopath, II= sneaky murdering psychopath, III child murdering psychopath – you know I think I'm spotting a theme here!)

Nah….Buckingham's the child murderer. Off with his head!

Its all so incestuous isn't it?
It makes Eastenders look positively wholesome

"Richard's family are not buried entirely at Windsor. His wife is resting in Westminster Abbey, his son just outside York at Sheriff Hutton. His brother Clarence rests in Tewkesbury Abbey. "

His (first) wife was put in Westminster Abbey, a Royal burial but out of the way. Windsor would then be left free for him and his replacement wife. Possibly Elizabeth Woodville, but probably a Spanish consort (cant recall her name off hand, sorry). His juvenile son clearly got a quiet local burial, and according to the sources I quoted above Richard – although genuinely grieving – was immediately thinking of starting his new dynasty line once his ailing and barren first wife fell off the planet, perhaps with a little Ricardian help? George the Serial Traitor was just a total embarrassment to everybody. The further away he was planted the better.

His (first) wife was put in Westminster Abbey, a Royal burial but out of the way.

What makes you say that? "Out of the way"? What was he supposed to do? Put her body on display? The capital is hardly out of the way IMO.

His juvenile son clearly got a quiet local burial, and according to the sources I quoted above Richard – although genuinely grieving – was immediately thinking of starting his new dynasty line once his ailing and barren first wife fell off the planet, perhaps with a little Ricardian help?

There's absolutely no evidence Richard was involved in his wife's death. People died relatively young in those days, sadly they still do. The solar eclipse at the time of her passing inclined superstitious medieval minds to think something evil had happened to Anne whereas almost certainly it was death by natural causes. Anne's sister Isabel died young too.

There's no evidence, other than Tudor propaganda and court gossip that he wanted to marry his niece Elizabeth, in fact he specifically denied any such intention. Nothing much changes, even now if celebrities deny something in the media people just think "ah he / she is denying it…there must be something in it then." Richard may have done better to say nothing. It's unlikely the Pope would have given a dispensation anyway.

If we assume Richard knew Anne was terminally ill, he would have to start the search for a child bearing bride ASAP, the future of the dynasty depended on it. He may well have hated the thought. Many widowers are repulsed by the prospect of touching another woman but they do not have the responsibility of looking to the future of a kingdom like Richard did. There is, after all, no evidence that he was ever unfaithful to Anne Neville, there's no official "Royal Mistress" as there was in the French Court.

It is theoretically possible I grant you that once their son died Richard could have seen he would have no more children with Anne Neville and bumped her off so he could marry again and get another heir but it comes down to the same thing; evidence and other than gossip, slanderous rumour and "men do say", there simply isn't any.

There was in fact a male Yorkist heir anyway which always seems to get forgotten; John De La Pole, Earl of Lincoln who was Richard's nephew though Richard would obviously have preferred his own son to inherit.

Regards
Alan

Sorry 1815 Guy, I should have spotted this and mentioned it in my original reply;

His (first) wife was put in Westminster Abbey, a Royal burial but out of the way

Richard only had one wife; Anne Neville. He didn't remarry after she passed away.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to start a flame war or have a go at you. It's nice to debate but nobody likes to feel picked on.

All the best.

Alan