"Richard III to go to Leicester" Topic

link

The BBC article fails to mention the chantry chapel he had wanted built for his remains in York Minster and what many historians assert was his desire to be buried in York but that would seem to be that.

Possession is nine tenths of the law it would seem and I think today's judgement should be an end to it. I think the judges are wrong but we have to abide by their decision or it becomes an unseemly squabble over what are, after all, the remains of a human being not a treasure hoard. The Leicester archaeologists and the University there have sometimes come across as a little arrogant with their "finders keepers, we can do what we like and nobody else gets a say" attitude and the Dean of York Minster saying "we don't want the bones" when her last employer was…..Leicester Cathedral was borderline dishonest but IMO now is the time to end the matter.

A wrong judgement based on arrogance, dishonesty and possible corruption that failed to take into account the wishes of the deceased.

Sounds like grounds for an appeal, m'lud :)

Good luck to him if he is thinking of taking the railway!

Here's what one of our two local MPs says about it;

Mr Sturdy said: "Regardless of your opinion on where Richard III should be reburied, be it York, Leicester, or even Westminster Abbey, it is clear that the exhumation license remains deeply flawed and amounts to little more than a ‘finders keepers' agreement concocted behind closed doors.

"It is immensely frustrating that despite the unprecedented discovery of such a historically, politically and culturally significant monarch, the Ministry of Justice still refuses to listen to the public on such an important issue.

"Many of my own constituents believe they have been cheated out of the democratic and open debate that should have taken place over such an important chapter in our heritage.

"It is only right and proper that King Richard should return to his home city of York, even if on a temporary basis, after spending the last 500 years under a car park in Leicester. The people of Yorkshire deserve the chance to pay their final respects to the last Yorkist King, whose death brought about the end of one of the most brutal conflicts in our history."

I think he makes several fair points but to take it any further, perhaps to a European Court, seems to be an expensive venture with little hope of success. Why not bring Richard's remains here to York for a while, let them Lay in State so people can pay their respects, before a ceremonial cortège down to Leicester for a Catholic burial service at his last resting place?

I agree with Mr. Sturdy. He belongs in York.

He wasn't buried under a car park but in a church. Only later was the church demolished and much later still the car park came along.

Having a lying in state is not really appropriate IMHO, certainly not after 500 years. I can't see why modern Yorkshiremen would feel any afinity to a King who did them little or no good.

I don't really understand all the fuss, it's only a skeleton. Does it matter where it's buried?

Alan makes good points here Richard wanted to be burried in York and that is where he belongs. I suspect the North might well resent this decision.

Who knew a current political dimension could emerge from this?

Good if he goes up to York it will cost a fortune to go in the Minster. Plus he has been in Leicester for the past 500 years, so he can claim squatters rights.

I watched a documentary on the whole finding and verifying of his remains on the weekend, and the intensity of emotion on the part of some people (i.e. Richard III Society) was…interesting.

He wasn't buried under a car park but in a church. Only later was the church demolished and much later still the car park came along.

Having a lying in state is not really appropriate IMHO, certainly not after 500 years. I can't see why modern Yorkshiremen would feel any afinity to a King who did them little or no good

He did lots of good things for the people of York and the North in general, it's all documented. Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard has the details if you want to check it out. Many people here feel strongly about Richard.

I don't really understand all the fuss, it's only a skeleton. Does it matter where it's buried?

Because he is a human being. My wife died young, 47. When I go to her I would be appalled if my mortal remains weren't placed where my will says they should be, with her. It certainly matters to me!!! Of course Richard didn't leave a will so that's what has caused the controversy.

Alan makes good points here Richard wanted to be burried in York and that is where he belongs. I suspect the North might well resent this decision.

Who knew a current political dimension could emerge from this?

The London Establishment doesn't care about The North, never has, never will. They didn't like Richard much either.

Alan – I referred to modern Yorkshire folk, not the Yorkshiremen of Richard's time.

I can't honestly see that any significant proportion of the population give a damn where he is buried. Nor can I see why people are so partisan about a man who died so long ago – an interest is one thing but getting so emotive about it seems a bit pathetic to me.

None of which makes it any less real for those who take a view on it.

And Alan is right this will play into a wider mood music of the North loosing out.

When Tony Travis talks about a Dark Star you know things have got pretty bad.

Depends how you define "emotive". I feel strongly he should be buried in York but I'm not going to go onto the streets and protest or kill somebody over it. Everyone's entitled to their views, you think it's "pathetic" Gildas? I don't. I respect your opinion though.

I will agree with you that many people don't know anything about Richard or the period. That's because the teaching of history in schools is pretty abysmal since the Politically Correct mob got hold of it, but that's another topic in itself. Nevertheless I think the majority of folks in this part of the world who DO have even a passing knowledge of the subject think he would prefer to rest here. "Leicester dumped him in a hole and forgot about him, now they want to make money out of him" is the prevailing view. York Minster is the biggest Gothic Cathedral in Northern Europe and doesn't "need" Richard from a monetary point of view, it's busy all year round.

It's been decided that he should stay in Leicester now and that's that. Perhaps if he is unhappy with that decision he will make his displeasure known. A royal haunting perhaps? I don't think it would be the first time.

I don't understand was pro Lancastrian throughout the most of the Wars of the Roses. As far as I can recall Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III, had little to do with the city. His father and brother were killed nearby at Wakefield and their heads hung from the city walls.

I don't understand was pro Lancastrian throughout the most of the Wars of the Roses. As far as I can recall Richard of Gloucester, later Richard III, had little to do with the city. His father and brother were killed nearby at Wakefield and their heads hung from the city walls.

Richard's elder brother King Edward IV made him Lord of the North. York was Richard's regional capital and he made great and successful efforts to win the people over to his governorship in particular and Yorkist rule in general. He seems to have born no grudge towards the city vis a vis the heads. I assume he understood the City Fathers had done as Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian commanders had ordered after the Battle of Wakefield and didn't have any choice in the matter.

"Alan – I referred to modern Yorkshire folk, not the Yorkshiremen of Richard's time."

Well, you are from Lancashire….

I think the clue is in the name, 'Richard of York'. The Last English King, the last to die in battle etc etc.

Anyway, it is all a bit of a storm in a teacup, we do like out regional tribalisms. He was a King and deserves a decent burial appropriate to his station, but a cathedral somewhere will be fine I'm sure.

Besides, as we know from 'The Tudors', he was actually an emo version of Bilbo Baggins.

link

A very interesting article. Thanks for posting it, AlanYork. The thread is interesting too in its cultural divide. We have very much the same in America, with the dominant culture basically disinterested in the past, and only niche counter cultures holding a reverence for what and who passed before. I'm a niche guy.

Perhaps the best way to look at it is as Rupert Brooke did in 'The Soldier'.

Certainly either result is an improvement from under the asphalt of a parking lot.

The sad fact is that Leicester Council & University put put up some money and did a lot of the work. A legal paper was signed before the dig began that whatever was found belonged to that city. Consider it a sort of "pre-nup". I believe that even part of that agreement referred to final re burial location. I would have preferred \york but… there it is.

Leicester. Cool. I just think it's kind of strange that someone so prominent got "lost" in the first place. When the original church went down, did no one at all even have a clue that a king of England was buried under it? He's been there for c. 500 years. It seems logical to put him back in the ground there. Arguing over debatable "historical" preferment is an endless exercise….

"I just think it's kind of strange that someone so prominent got "lost" in the first place."

It was a pre-internet stifle.

'This' is grounds for WAR! Being a Plantagenet from my 1st real miniatures army (15mm 6th ed WRG Richard III list ;) I can own no other allegiance and will do my utmost (little it may be-but!) to see Leicester Council & University denied. Let it begin (and time to start rebuilding a Yorkist army in 28mm this time too:) my imagination runs riot over the periods of history we could game the old Kingmaker wars . Ideas folks.
How about long lost Pretender making a go against our current Royals? I salute all who would see the dear mortal remains sent to their rightful abode,and a pox to those that denies such restful sleep. Cheers all and happy gaming

I suspect the real fuss is over where the tourist dollars will go. Many will flock to the new grave site. I'd prefer he was buried at York.

What Gildas Facit said …

He was born in Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire and his rollercoaster story ends abruptly in Leicestershire, where his remains have been for the last 500 years.

I'm sort of relieved they ignored the torrent of skewed and misunderstood history and followed standard procedures.

Phil

I think the clue is in the name, 'Richard of York'. The Last English King, the last to die in battle etc etc.

Well, actually, he was Richard, Duke of Gloucester. His father had been Duke of York (aka "Richard of York") but he died in 1460 and his eldest son Edward (later Edward IV) succeeded to the title. When Edward became king his other titles merged with the crown until Edward's younger son Richard (Richard of Gloucester's nephew) was made Duke of York in 1474.

It is of course important to bear in mind that the noble houses of York and Lancaster really had nothing to do with the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire.

Be that as it may, as others have said, Richard of Gloucester, as Edward IV's younger brother did indeed spend much time in the north. If he should be buried anywhere in the north, I should think he perhaps would have liked to have been buried at either Sheriff Hutton or Middleham – both estates that he had special affection for.

OTOH perhaps he would have preferred to have been buried with his wife Anne, at Westminster Abbey.

I am sure the local tourist board in York are bitterly disappointed while the Leicester one is jumping for joy

What Gildas Facit said …

He was born in Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire and his rollercoaster story ends abruptly in Leicestershire, where his remains have been for the last 500 years.

I'm sort of relieved they ignored the torrent of skewed and misunderstood history and followed standard procedures.

Phil

What do you see as skewed or misunderstood Phil? A lot of historical evidence and pretty much any biography points to his having a great affection for York and the North. He ordered a chantry chapel to be built in York Minster, a very convincing argument, but in fairness not a 100% conclusive one, can be made that it was his intent to be buried there. There doesn't seem to be any skewing or misunderstanding to me. I'm sure there are no "normal procedures" for unearthing a king and let's not forget if the Plantagenet Alliance had no prima facie case it would not have got a hearing in the first place so even though they lost their position would not have been without merit. Judicial reviews are not handed out like Smarties. Richard had no real connection with Leicester other than he was killed there. In law that would seem to be enough. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had been a Londoner rather than an adopted Northerner it would have been a different outcome…."oh no it's Westminster Abbey for you sunshine."

I agree with Major B. A fair compromise would be to bury him next to his wife in Westminster Abbey. If I am not laid next to my beloved late wife I'll make a point of coming back to haunt the miscreants until I am moved and placed with her!

I am sure the local tourist board in York are bitterly disappointed while the Leicester one is jumping for joy

To be honest Steve, and I know this will sound arrogant though it's not meant to, we have enough tourist attractions here, we don't particularly need any more. What we need is jobs that aren't based on tourism now we no longer make trains en masse and the confectionery industry is not what it was, Terry's factory having closed.

I have a few friends who have lived in York and you have the same problems there as we do here in Northern Ireland concerning decent non seasonal jobs

What was the deceased wishes?… What can the deceased do about it?

What was the deceased wishes?… What can the deceased do about it?

Without a will the best that can be done is an educated assumption based on what we know. It would seem that the judges didn't deem the assumption that Richard wanted to buried here to be strong enough to rule against Leicester. As I said before a good case can be made for York being his choice but it's not 100% conclusive.

The deceased can do nothing other than a haunting I suppose. Should the judges awake at night to an irate horde of ghostly Yorkist knights coming through their walls they may like to reconsider!

Man. I need to paint some WotR figs. It's hard for me to get excited about this either way, but it's fascinating to me to see people get excited about it.

There has always been a third contender for the burial site – Middleham in Wensleydale, North Yorkshire. When boys, Richard and his brother were 'swapped out' as pages to Middleham Castle as was the norm of the day. Apparently from then on he regarded it as his real home. His brother died young and was buried in Middleham Priory, which was destroyed during the Reformation. That means the brother may be in my own garden!

Quite honestly, we have kept up the claim just to get some more tourism.(It's working!)However, it does make sense to bury someone where they loved to be in life, rather than where they happened to be shoved after combat.

Our community typically has several inhabitants who believe themselves to be a re-incarnation of Richard III. Cicely Neville is the preferred female equivalent. Currently, we are very unusually down to one known candidate – spooky.Please understand that no Yorkshireman is likely to go with this; all candidates are 'off-comers' – i.e. nutters from out of town!

PS: The 'Middleham Jewel', possibly lost by Richard himself, is in the British Museum. Everyone round here still envies the finding of what must be the single most valuable item of Treasure Trove ever found in England.

sorry,error above – the jewel is in the Yorkshire Museum in York (as it should be). It only visited the BM.

Richard and his brother were 'swapped out' as pages to Middleham Castle as was the norm of the day. Apparently from then on he regarded it as his real home. His brother died young and was buried in Middleham Priory, which was destroyed during the Reformation.

Which brother are you referring to?

Richard was the youngest and George was 3 years older. Richard certainly went to Middleham at a young age as you describe, but I am not sure that George did too although it is certainly possible.

However, George did not "die young" – he was famously drowned in a butt of best Malmsey at the tender age of 28.

The only son of York who can be described as having "died young" is Edmund, killed at Wakefield in 1460 (aged 17). But he was buried at Pontefract (and later at Fotheringhay), not Middleham.

Cecily Neville had numerous other sons, that did not survive childhood, perhaps the reference is to them, Thomas for eg was 1-2 years older than Richard but did not survive

Historian, Medievalist and local WotR enthusiast (who, incidentally, supported the calls for a York burial), Helen Cox, has also recoiled from the misinformation

York Outwood MP Julian Sturdy has recently added to this, saying, ‘it's only right that King Richard should return to his home city of York even if on a temporary basis'. Now, Mr. Sturdy has constituents to serve, some of whom may have lobbied him vigorously on the matter, but that doesn't make his remark correct. Richard III was a Midlander, born at Fotheringhay. His childhood was spent at family residences including Ludlow Castle in Shropshire and Baynard's Castle in London. He had no particular association with Yorkshire until his adolescence at Middleham and later career as Lord of the North; and his itinerary as king makes plain that he spent more time in and around London and the Midlands than he did in York. His partiality for the northern capital may be clear; it was after all the heart of his late father's duchy (Richard himself never held the title of Duke of York); he reduced its civic taxes and had his son invested as Prince of Wales at the Minster, where he planned to found a major college of priests; nevertheless, York can by no stretch of the imagination be called his ‘home city'.

link

I think she sums it up well.

There has been fantastic work done on this project, so let's set the emotive guesses and half-truths to one side and enjoy 15th Century history getting a bit of the limelight for a change …

Phil

King Richard should return to his home city of York

I don't think Richard would have regarded York as his "home city" by any definition. As far as I am aware he never lived there and if nothing else, every time he saw the walls of York, it would have brought back unhappy memories that the heads of his father and brother were impaled above Micklegate in 1460/61.

His partiality for the northern capital may be clear; it was after all the heart of his late father's duchy

Yet again, people make this common mistake of associating the Duke of York with a geographical area. In 15th century England it was all about the title, not any connection with or direct rule over a "duchy" as such.

I don't think Richard would have regarded York as his "home city" by any definition. As far as I am aware he never lived there and if nothing else, every time he saw the walls of York, it would have brought back unhappy memories that the heads of his father and brother were impaled above Micklegate in 1460/61.

If he had no affection for York why then did he do so much for the city? Nobody disputes his partiality for York. Did he regard it as home? We don't know, we can't read the thoughts of somebody who has passed away. I'm pretty sure though that given the straight choice between York and Leicester he would have chosen York……So King Richard, would you like to be buried where people had affection for you, in a place you seemed to have genuinely liked in return, where you invested your son, where you planned a chantry chapel, that's near Middleham where you grew up, near to your son's resting place……or would you prefer to be buried where you were betrayed, dragged off your horse, killed and then thrown in a hole and forgotten about for 500 years? I think I know what my money would be on!

When it comes down to it he had connections here but none with Leicester. To say he was a "midlander" doesn't link him with Leicester any more than being a northerner links me with Lancashire (Heaven forbid lol). That consideration however is not one of the things the law seems to have taken into account and I really don't think an appeal has any prospect of success.

I'm one of Julian Sturdy's constituents BTW but all this certainly won't be at the top of my priority list when it comes to deciding who to vote for though it may play a minor part in my thinking come election day.

So King Richard, would you like to be buried where people had affection for you, in a place you seemed to have genuinely liked in return, where you invested your son, where you planned a chantry chapel, that's near Middleham where you grew up, near to your son's resting place……or would you prefer to be buried where you were betrayed, dragged off your horse, killed and then thrown in a hole and forgotten about for 500 years?

Personally, I think his reply to that would have been "I want to be buried with my beloved Anne".

Personally, I think his reply to that would have been "I want to be buried with my beloved Anne".

I think there's a lot to be said for that point of view. It would be a fair compromise, would have saved a lot of time and legal fees and would be a logical choice. Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been seriously considered.

link

Leicester it is….

Shame it wasn't York, but I would agree with majorB, with Anne in London would have been RIII's choice

I'm in Leicester this week for work and I hope to pop by the new exhibition.

Tickets bought and all set for tomorrow :-)

What an excellent exhibition – thoroughly recommended :-)