Let Richard III rest in peace in York (From York Press)

Let Richard III rest in peace in York

11:23am Saturday 9th February 2013 in Letters By Readers' letters

THE mayor of Leicester is reported as saying that “King Richard III’s remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral, in whose shadow his remains have lain for 500 years”.

There is some exaggeration there. Leicester Cathedral dates only from 1927 when a new diocese was created and the parish church of St Martin was elevated to cathedral status.

So, King Richard has only been in the shadow of a cathedral from some 85 years.

He was not even buried in the shadow of the church as it was altered in several ways which would have affected its shadow.

The medieval plan of the church may have been retained, but the structure of the church building is largely Victorian, and its splendid spire was built in 1867.

Although Leicester was created a city in 1589, city status was not confirmed until 1919.

I feel that even though all towns and cities have changed tremendously in the past 500 years, King Richard’s remains should be interred here in York which he would have known far better than Leicester, and where his soul will be able to rest in peace, only a few miles from his son’s resting place.

David Bottomley, Brafferton, Helperby.

• RICHARD of York won’t be coming back to York. That’s a real shame.

Related links

Family bid for Richard III's return

After being “mislaid” for more than 500 years by the good people of Leicester, and then discovered buried beneath a car park, one wonders at the wisdom of this decision.

I’m sure there are a few people we’d all like to bury under a car park, but a former King of England isn’t one of them. It wouldn’t happen in York, I’m sure.

Perhaps cremation is the answer – then we could share.

Mrs K P Render, Back Lane, Helperby, York.

• WITH reference to Richard III, I am not Yorkshire born and bred, but I think this much-maligned King’s remains should be brought back to York to be buried in the Minster, no matter what the Minster authorities say.

Edward II and Richard II were both murdered but were treated with more respect than Richard III had at the hands of his enemies. Edward was buried in Gloucester Cathedral and Richard in Westminster Abbey, by the orders of Henry V.

I would also imagine if the city councillors go ahead with their plans to cut street lighting, road cleaning budgets and parks left unlocked at night, the city will be similar to the medieval York Richard knew and loved. Mrs M Robinson, Broadway, York.

• I’M A born and bred Lancastrian. After seeing the documentary The King In The Car Park, I saw there was a clear and immediate danger of the last Plantagenet King of England, the last King of England to die in battle with strong links to Yorkshire, being buried in Leicester Cathedral.

Leicester has no links to Richard III, bar the historical circumstance of where he died. So I went the Government’s online petition site to register that Richard III should be buried in York Minster, a right and fitting place for a Yorkshire king.

Imagine my shock to see only 10,887 people had registered for this. Don’t people in Yorkshire care where their last King is to be buried?

I’m sure he deserves a far more fitting burial than Leicester. This is not a Lancastrian having a go; just get your Yorkshire king back where he belongs.

David Atherton, Silverdale, Newcastle-under-Lyme.

• NOW it has been estimated by the wonders of modern technology that the skull unearthed is indeed Richard III, the remaining item on the agenda before this cold case can be laid to rest is a burial location.

Born in York of Lancastrian parents, I may declare an interest, although in Richard III’s case, raised and born under the White Rose county, there can be no alternative than a final resting place in York.

During medieval times, York was considered the capital of the north and second only to London.

Kenneth Bowker, Vesper Walk, Huntington, York.

Comments(26)

Whitest Rose says...
11:59am Sat 9 Feb 13

Leicester are treating the remains of Richard 111 as if they are treasure trove to be on display for the tourists.

This was a living breathing person who had strong associations with Yorkshire.

I am a Midlands born person but surely the most important issue is to bury King Richard in his spiritual home which according to some is where he wanted to be buried.

IMO Ripon would be a good choice as it is near to his home in Middleham but as long as it is somewhere in Yorkshire for me it does not have to be York Minster.

Report this post »

Seadog says...
5:00pm Sat 9 Feb 13

I'm sorry, but being "born and bred" in Lancashire no more makes you a "Lancastrian" than being born and bred in Yorkshire makes you a "Yorkist". By the late 15th century the terms "House of York" and "House of Lancaster" had about as much to do with Yorkshire and Lancashire as the label "Empire Made" (remember that?) had to do with the British Empire (it actually meant "Made in Hong Kong"!).

The Yorkists and Lancastrians were EQUALLY descended from Edward III and were therefore EQUALLY Plantagenet. It was a family feud, after all.

Henry ap Tydor's claim to the throne is another matter, though!

Report this post »

NoMorePlease says...
5:10pm Sat 9 Feb 13

"I’m sure there are a few people we’d all like to bury under a car park, but a former King of England isn’t one of them. It wouldn’t happen in York, I’m sure. " Mrs K P Render

Er. I don't suppose the car park builders were aware of the skeleton. Laughable

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
12:59pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Edward III had a son called John O'Gaunt. One of his favourite residences was Leicester, where one of his wives lays in rest, several of his children were born and a few of his offspring are buried. The wife of his son Henry IV is buried in Leicester.

From John O'Gaunt we get the children that brought Richard III and Henry VII to Bosworth and Leicester.

A direct link that makes Leicester the destiny for Richard's final resting place.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
9:38am Wed 13 Feb 13

Henry IV of the House of Lancaster? - exactly why Henry VII did not bury Richard in the same church as his Lancastrian ancestors wasn't it?

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
9:46am Wed 13 Feb 13

You missed the point. Forget Houses of Lancaster and York. The War of the Roses was a family dispute. Richard III was also related to those buried in Leicester. He was a direct descendant of Edward III...

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
10:48am Wed 13 Feb 13

Knibbsie. I am assuming you are the same knibbsie that has gone into meltdown on the Leicester Mercury website - trying your hardest to promote the claims of York, over those of your hometown?

Why then on the 7th February 2013, on the Mercury website, did you write

"Even though I believe that the remains should stay here I really don't see what it has got to do with the University of Leicester where the remains go - Richard Plantagenet does not belong to the University of Leicester! I really think that the decision should be made by his nearest living relation..."

So before you went into meltdown, you believed that Richard's remains should stay in Leicester.

You also thought the location of the remains had nothing to do with the University of Leicester - the institution that helped to locate, exhume and identify the remains?

You also think that the final decision should rest with the nearest living relation.

Some more quotes for you then fellow Leicestrian.

"I think he should stay in Leicester. He was killed there and he was buried there. My personal feeling is that it's only proper he remains there."
Michael Ibsen - the only living male descendant of Richard and the man whose DNA helped to identify the king.

So what does Leslie Ibsen, his sister have to say?

“I understand he had big ties to York, but really, if he had been found in the middle of nowhere that would be one thing, but it was Greyfriars Church. And it was the University of Leicester that was involved, and that was fair.”

Philippa Langley who started the project to find Richard, asked Buckingham Palace if they wanted the remains at Westminster or Windsor Castle. She said...

"...they believe because he died in Leicester and was buried in Leicester for 500 years, he should stay in Leicester.

York Minster have commended Richard to the care of Leicester.

It really is time to give up!!!

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
9:55pm Wed 13 Feb 13

thanks for refreshing my memory on things i may have said - yes i did say them but unlike you and the rest of the Kerching Leicesterites- because your position is all about money - it can't be about morality or ethics because you have no such position - İ think and come to different conclusions based on what İ discover read. Basically these is about the human remains of a person not like one of your Leicester commodities to be bought and sold like Walkers Crisps - he on a balance of probability would not have wanted to be buried in Leicester a place where he was humilated after death and before death had to be careful where he stayed so much did he trust his loving people there - İ respect the dead it is a pity you don't - İ am completely unsorry that İ am a traitor to your noble town - İ would much rather be that than be a traitor to my code of ethics - other descendents have said York and as for Langley well İ'm sorry Leicester Uni dug up her beloved monarch - she'll toe their line and after her hysterical performance on that C4 programme İ will look for a more balanced view. One of your fellow Kerchingers by mistake put it rather well when he said that Richard would be reinterned in Leicester "interned" is exactly it. İ will continue in meltdown because i will stand up for the right and what you Kerchingers want is absolutely wrong, unethical and immoral

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
9:52am Thu 14 Feb 13

You Sir have lost the plot.

For the record, I don't think any charge should be made to see Richard's tomb in Leicester Cathedral, or at the new Richard III Museum.

I sincerely hope Leicester makes no money at all from the Richard III connection.

What I am excited about is that a key part of Leicester's history has been rediscovered. I'm also happy that Richard has been found at last, despite the best efforts of Henry VII to keep him hidden.

You concentrate much on this theory of yours, that Richard had to be careful where he stayed in Leicester- before the Battle of Bosworth. You seem to think Leicester Castle was an unsafe place for him to stay.

Perhaps if you read up on history a bit more, you will have realised that in 1485, Leicester Castle had deteriorated a bit since the King had stayed there last in 1483.

It wasn't that Leicester was unsafe. It was that the Castle was structurally unsafe. He clearly didn't fear the citizens of Leicester - as he stayed at the Blue Boar Inn on Highcross Street. That was the main street in the town and a non-secured building.

Also there is zero evidence of any mistreatment of Richard's body by the citizens of Leicester.

In fact if you read up on your history, you might notice that Richard's son Richard Plantagenet was on the way to meet his father in London. As he passed through Leicester, he heard about a body that was being brought through the town on a horse and discovered it was his father.

He never made any claims about the body being mistreated by Leicesterian's - or that he shouldn't be buried in the city.

It is wholly unacceptable to lecture people on morality and ethics and to claim others don't share your self-inflated sense of decency. You can't even stick to your own original view that Richard should remain in Leicester.

To say I don't respect the dead. What a disgraceful thing to say. I am interested in the history of Leicester and Richard III is a character that I strongly associate with my city. for many years I have written to local organisations and national bodies, to have a search for Richard's remains.

Not because of pound signs for Leicester. But because Richard shouldn't lay in a unrecognised grave and also because I have a passion about the history of Leicester.

I'm fully aware of how the people of York feel about Richard, but there are plenty of us in Leicester that also associate him with Leicester. That has been the case for many, many generations.

You Sir have lost the plot. For the record, I don't think any charge should be made to see Richard's tomb in Leicester Cathedral, or at the new Richard III Museum. I sincerely hope Leicester makes no money at all from the Richard III connection. What I am excited about is that a key part of Leicester's history has been rediscovered. I'm also happy that Richard has been found at last, despite the best efforts of Henry VII to keep him hidden. You concentrate much on this theory of yours, that Richard had to be careful where he stayed in Leicester- before the Battle of Bosworth. You seem to think Leicester Castle was an unsafe place for him to stay. Perhaps if you read up on history a bit more, you will have realised that in 1485, Leicester Castle had deteriorated a bit since the King had stayed there last in 1483. It wasn't that Leicester was unsafe. It was that the Castle was structurally unsafe. He clearly didn't fear the citizens of Leicester - as he stayed at the Blue Boar Inn on Highcross Street. That was the main street in the town and a non-secured building. Also there is zero evidence of any mistreatment of Richard's body by the citizens of Leicester. In fact if you read up on your history, you might notice that Richard's son Richard Plantagenet was on the way to meet his father in London. As he passed through Leicester, he heard about a body that was being brought through the town on a horse and discovered it was his father. He never made any claims about the body being mistreated by Leicesterian's - or that he shouldn't be buried in the city. It is wholly unacceptable to lecture people on morality and ethics and to claim others don't share your self-inflated sense of decency. You can't even stick to your own original view that Richard should remain in Leicester. To say I don't respect the dead. What a disgraceful thing to say. I am interested in the history of Leicester and Richard III is a character that I strongly associate with my city. for many years I have written to local organisations and national bodies, to have a search for Richard's remains. Not because of pound signs for Leicester. But because Richard shouldn't lay in a unrecognised grave and also because I have a passion about the history of Leicester. I'm fully aware of how the people of York feel about Richard, but there are plenty of us in Leicester that also associate him with Leicester. That has been the case for many, many generations. Old_Town_Leicester

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
2:43pm Thu 14 Feb 13

With respect sir it is you who has lost the plot As there is no evidence that Richard Plantaganet was indeed Richards son apart from Richard Plantaganet's I think your reliance on his "evidence" is somewhat grasping at straws. If he was indeed Richard's son he would have every reason to keep it zipped and also run as fast as he can away from Leicester and away from danger - which is probably why he lived until I believe 1550 (and told people that he was Richard's son I believe in 1546 when nobody cared? )I am sure that the people of Leicester filed past their previous monarch like those of a later time did those of George VI with deep respect and humility whilst Tudor guards were no doubt watching them - by Richard III not feeling safe in his castle I mean that he stayed at a place where no-one knew where he was for safety. You have no respect for the dead because all you are interested in is Leicester's history and not where Richard III would have (on a balance of probabilty) have wanted to be buried. I find your lack of respect for Richard "disgraceful" - I am sorry you feel that I should be criticised for once saying that he should be in Leicester - that was very early days and I had not thought my view through carefully - I now have - at least I am prepared to change my view which you are not despite it been rather obvious that you are competely wrong in this matter.

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
3:09pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Been on Google I see...

So now you accept that the people of Leicester did not disrespect the body of Richard.

How did Richard stay at a place where no-one knew where he was? The Ricardian forces had been building for a week in Leicester, before the Battle of Bosworth.

Richard himself arrived in Leicester and stayed at the best known hotel in the city. It would have been widely known that he had left Nottingham to go to Leicester.

So now I have no respect for the dead, because I have an interest in the history of my hometown? Based on your self-styled "balance of probability".

Richard died without a will and there is no documented expression of where he wished to be buried.

I am willing to accept that he might not have chosen Leicester. But he might have chosen Northamptonshire (his birthplace and where his mum and dad were buried), London (where his wife was buried), Gloucester (where he was Duke of) - or somewhere else.

So if he has been in Leicester for so long and never made an expression of his choice of burial place - then where does your moral standpoint originate from?

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
4:23pm Thu 14 Feb 13

I would not be as unhappy to see him buried in say Fotheringhay (where he was born) or London (where he was king - I'm not however sure about his wife as he did not put any reasonable memorial over her body which does not indicate great adoration - the RIII Soc did it in 1960 I believe) -or the one you do not mention the burial-place of his son - Yorkshire. I don't think Gloucester has anything going for it. I however am personally not happy with Leicester which despite what you say - and if we leave the probable post death mutiliation of his body aside - would I suspect hardly have been on his list of "places I want to be buried" I do agree that charging for going into a church is wrong - even my bible says so I believe - I am not trying to have a personal "pop" at you either. I suspect we will never agree on this one, but even if Leicester wins do you not think that the church of St Mary De Castro - which is a beautiful church - there at the time and with his ancestors in would be a lot more fitting than a 1927 cathedral - which frankly ain't the greatest church in the world - mind you I am biased - I went to Durham University with a beautiful cathedral. There is nothing wrong with using "Google" - you should expect this if you pop up with a "fact" which really isn't one is it? Richard Plantaganet may be King Richard's son but most likely he was not - he was also not going to London to meet his father but the accounts say he met him before the battle where he was told that he was Richard's son. Can you really deny that the chances were he wasn't at Leicester at the time and that even if he was he certainly wasn't going to make a fuss but depart speedily as if he had seen Richard the night before - a big "if" - then someone else might have known and he could have been gazing down the wrong end of an axe (Like Richard's known illegitimate children) fairly speedily (no-one is saying the Tudor's were "nice" here) - I am a History graduate and always interested to learn - could you point me to the reference that says the castle was run down in 1485? By the way - for the avoidance of doubt - I have not in this said I want him to be buried in Leicester but have been playing Devil's Advocate - please don't misquote me - I'm getting tons of that and it's not - I hope you will agree - good historical method.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
4:25pm Thu 14 Feb 13

By the way I was been sarcastic about the Leicester people filing past Richard III with respect - no chance did that happen with Tudor guards looking on did it?

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
4:37pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Hi knibbsie. I struggled to understand some of that I'm afraid.

However, if you want to see a literature source for the story about Richard III's son - look in Billson's Medieval Leicester. It is conjecture, but no more so than your one source about the citizens of Leicester's treatment of Richard's corpse.

There are numerous sources that suggest Leicester Castle was in a poor state in 1485.

St Mary de Castro is a more beautiful church than St Martin's, granted. However St Martin's was not built in 1927 - it is 11th century in the oldest part - 14th and 15th century in many internal parts and largely Victorian externally.

St Martin's is however the nearest religious building to the Greyfriar's grave site - which is why it has been chosen.

I'd love to see Richard buried at st Mary de Castro - though it must be remembered that some texts mention this as the place where he was left in public gaze for two days.

Even though most people think this was St Mary of the Annunciation, it may have been St Mary de Castro.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
5:00pm Thu 14 Feb 13

I think that conjecture can be conjecture - it is at least probable - people been people that the body may well have been abused - indeed if you had Tudor Guards looking on then to be seen to lob a mouldy apple or something may well have been something that might have been wise to do - on an warm August day after two days it is not something I would have queued to see but then public executions held on until the 1850s!!! However your story of Richard Plantagenet (the son of Richard III is highly improbable seeing that the man only admitted it in 1546 (some 61 years after the event) - and to be honest you did present it as a fact did you not? And yes I've sometimes done that in the heat of the moment. More likely it was a medieval equivalent of Anna Anderson! The nearest site to the burial site is not canon law - burial on the parish or pauper's burials are the beginnings of this (under the Elizabethan Poor Law) - and I'm sure you know parishes would do more than anything to avoid burying a paupers' corpse (including leaving him /her over a boundary) - Richard III however does not fit this scenario though - Mary Queen of Scots and Richard II were moved much much further when they were re-buried

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
5:06pm Thu 14 Feb 13

You can't use conjecture though to justify not re-burying Richard in Leicester. He was displayed for two days to prove he was the dead king - not to have apples thrown at him.

The nearest religious site is a burial custom for archeologists...

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
6:09pm Thu 14 Feb 13

i personally think that the archeologists should have no say in this especially since they still are even considering whether it is OKto put the bones on display when it is quite obviously not OK - What about the bones in the jewry wall museum - were they even reinterred in consecrated ground. To be honest it's so obvious that they should have been looking for Richard İİİ years ago that they should be ashamed of myself. That Langley woman did good work there but i still thinks she's a sandwich short of a full picnic

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
8:24am Fri 15 Feb 13

The archeologists asked Buckingham Palace about the burial site of Richard, a long time before the exhumation dig.

The result of all their consultations has led to the re-interment licence that we have today.

The bones in Jerwy Wall Museum date from the pre-Christian era.

Philippa Langley did a grand job in helping to locate Richard. she was also instrumental in asking Buckingham Palace about Richard at the very early stages of the project.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
10:45am Fri 15 Feb 13

I frankly don't see why Lizzie Windsor's opinion has anything to do with it seeing that she is the descendant of Henry VII (Richard's greatest enemy) and not Richard III - also Richard would have considered her claim to the throne as baseless as to him Elizabeth of York was illegitimate - It is unfortunate that PL did so much good work then let the side down by acting in such a "hyper" way in the C4 programme - she made the Richard III Society look like a cult - I was already aware from their theories that they're not serious historians!

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
10:47am Fri 15 Feb 13

I am a Christian but it is of no interest to me whether the bones are pre-christian -we live in a multi-cultural society and such views I think could be considered as arrogant. Indeed I think they *are" arrogant

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
11:40am Fri 15 Feb 13

Good luck with raising your army, to prove that the Queen doesn't have a say...

Until you've taken the throne from her, I think her opinion will hold some considerable sway.

Henry VII and Richard III were related. They are both descended from Edward III. Richard's ancestry came through a legitimate route from one of Edward III's sons. Henry's came through an illegitimate route from another of Edward's sons.

Both men shared the bloodline of Edward III. Elizabeth of York married Henry VII. She was the daughter of Edward IV, the brother of Richard III. So Henry married Richard's niece, which makes Richard III, Henry VIIs uncle...and Henry VIII's great uncle.

As an additional note - researchers found that had the bloodline (without illegitimate heirs) been followed correctly, the British throne would now be in the hands of Aussies Simon Abney-Hastings. His ancestral home was in Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
11:56am Fri 15 Feb 13

I didn't say that her opinion won't have sway - merely it shouldn't - as a Republican sooner rather than later - no army will be needed - I hope you're not trying to incite me to rebellion there, dear adversary? People will eventually realise they are an anachronism. LW is not a direct decendent of Richard III but is of Henry VII - the 14th Great Grand- Niece of one - the 13th Great Grand-Daughter of the other so I did kind of know the geneological info I suspect you didn't think I did! I didn't know the Aussie thing you mention but I don't think we'll have a King Simon I anytime soon whether he has a Leicestershire connection or not - you must be really disappointed!!!

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
12:03pm Fri 15 Feb 13

If you are truly a Republican - then why are you in the slightest bit concered about Richard III and his re-burial?

You should be thinking more about overthrowing the Monarchy, than getting all self-indignant about someone who was buried over 500 years ago.

He would afterall, through your Republican sentiments, not be fit to be King either. Why should royal descent concern you?

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
1:45pm Fri 15 Feb 13

I was waiting for that - don't be so predictable I am a History graduate - on your logic I should not study slavery because we no longer have slavery!! Monarchy is a medieval concept IMHO which has no place in the 21st Century but does that mean I should not be interested in it in a time when it belonged! Should I only study countries and times without kings then? Also if I discovered that Joe Smith from Croydon was been buried where he wouldn't have wanted to have been I would be asking him to be buried in accordance with his wishes as I think very strongly that we should respect the wishes of the dead and I am 100% sure that he would not have wanted to be buried in Leicester - that was merely an accident of fate!

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
2:01pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Do you think Lady Jane Grey, the Leicestershire Nine Day Queen of England, chose to be imprisoned in the Tower of London, have her head chopped off and then find herself buried within the Tower?

Probably not...

But do you think Leicestershire should start a campaign to have her body moved back to Bradgate Park?

Remember if you are a Republican, Richard IIIs burial is of no concern to you. He shouldn't have been King according to you and therefore where he is buried, is no more important than where the soldiers of our nation fell across the world.

Though of course they fought for Monarch and country - so as a Republican - how do you feel about fallen soldiers who rest abroad?

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
3:16pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Right - lots to comment on there - the two examples are not in any way alike - Lady Jane Grey's bones are in the Tower of London - and they have *never* (to my knowledge ) been dug up!!! - Dear Adversary - We have Richard III's bones and we are discussing their disposition and have a chance here to do what's "right" - obviously our definitions of "right" differ but we do not have the same opportunity with Lady Jane Grey - Also Lady Jane Grey was a traitor and suffered a traitor's death (Let's put aside the romanticising of her memory based on hindsight of the reign of "Bloody Mary") - As a traitor she was lucky to be buried at all and not quartered and exhibited in the major towns of the kingdom (That includes "York" but not "Leicester" - I wonder why!!) She is in a traitor's grave and should IMHO stay there. In fact by mentioning her you are actually arguing against yourself - because historically one of the categories of persons who had no say in the disposition of their remains was convicted murderers and traitors. By giving King Richard III no such opportunity you are putting him in the same category (which also includes felo-de-se and pirates!) This shows him no respect whatsoever.
Why is Richard III's burial of no concern to me because I am a Republican? I don't agree with the present monarchy but that doesn't mean that I don't agree that in 1485 it was the way things should have been run - repeat - monarchy is a medieval institution and belongs in medieval times - Richard III was a medieval king therefore I have no problem with him. One thing I won't do is attribute any royal mysticism to the bones - they are the bones of a human being - as a human being (if not a monarchist human being!) and a Christian I feel it is appropriate to respect bones and also the wishes of the dead. There is no way - if Richard III had a list of burial places - that Leicester would have been on the list even though I acknowledge that York would not have been the only one on the "list" - therefore he should not be buried in Leicester - that as far as I am concerned is the logical progression.
I really don't see the logic of your last about soldiers around the world - may I first point out that it is only fairly recently that common soldiers received any respect from a grateful country - I could point you to casualty lists as late as the 19th Century which only mention officers as officers were the only ones perceived as worth mentioning. Then of course when we had major wars the logistics and cost of repatriation would have been too much and they were left in a foreign field "that was forever England" - now as I'm sure you're aware the bodies of our soldiers are repatriated. Indeed up until the First World War no publicly funded grave was provided for service personnel. Are you suggesting that we dig them all up and repatriate - I feel you are just throwing mud in the hope it will stick - leave them in peace - It would be absurd to do this and just because I am mentioning the wishes of one man who we have the chance to do something about does not mean I want the great majority dug up and repatriated! again we have the body of Richard III which has been dug up - let's stick to that. You also say they died for monarch and country - which seems to be based on the theory that the monarch is the "head of the body politic" - we have a constitutional monarchy now and I feel that such comments are anachronistic - I have the greatest respect for people who have laid down their lives for this country and fought often evil dictators - I have no respect for so-called "royals" likening killing to a computer game! In Medieval times common soldiers were buried in a common grave - the nobility were not buried with them and certainly not kings so this does not support burying Richard in Leicester - Richard I was not buried where he fell in battle - only his entrails were (as a deliberate insult to the people who had killed him!) - any other nobility would normally have been repatriated to where they came from or at least to a major (i.e. not Leicester!) cathedral near where they fell. If you reply I will not be able to get back to you until Monday.

Right - lots to comment on there - the two examples are not in any way alike - Lady Jane Grey's bones are in the Tower of London - and they have *never* (to my knowledge ) been dug up!!! - Dear Adversary - We have Richard III's bones and we are discussing their disposition and have a chance here to do what's "right" - obviously our definitions of "right" differ but we do not have the same opportunity with Lady Jane Grey - Also Lady Jane Grey was a traitor and suffered a traitor's death (Let's put aside the romanticising of her memory based on hindsight of the reign of "Bloody Mary") - As a traitor she was lucky to be buried at all and not quartered and exhibited in the major towns of the kingdom (That includes "York" but not "Leicester" - I wonder why!!) She is in a traitor's grave and should IMHO stay there. In fact by mentioning her you are actually arguing against yourself - because historically one of the categories of persons who had no say in the disposition of their remains was convicted murderers and traitors. By giving King Richard III no such opportunity you are putting him in the same category (which also includes felo-de-se and pirates!) This shows him no respect whatsoever. Why is Richard III's burial of no concern to me because I am a Republican? I don't agree with the present monarchy but that doesn't mean that I don't agree that in 1485 it was the way things should have been run - repeat - monarchy is a medieval institution and belongs in medieval times - Richard III was a medieval king therefore I have no problem with him. One thing I won't do is attribute any royal mysticism to the bones - they are the bones of a human being - as a human being (if not a monarchist human being!) and a Christian I feel it is appropriate to respect bones and also the wishes of the dead. There is no way - if Richard III had a list of burial places - that Leicester would have been on the list even though I acknowledge that York would not have been the only one on the "list" - therefore he should not be buried in Leicester - that as far as I am concerned is the logical progression. I really don't see the logic of your last about soldiers around the world - may I first point out that it is only fairly recently that common soldiers received any respect from a grateful country - I could point you to casualty lists as late as the 19th Century which only mention officers as officers were the only ones perceived as worth mentioning. Then of course when we had major wars the logistics and cost of repatriation would have been too much and they were left in a foreign field "that was forever England" - now as I'm sure you're aware the bodies of our soldiers are repatriated. Indeed up until the First World War no publicly funded grave was provided for service personnel. Are you suggesting that we dig them all up and repatriate - I feel you are just throwing mud in the hope it will stick - leave them in peace - It would be absurd to do this and just because I am mentioning the wishes of one man who we have the chance to do something about does not mean I want the great majority dug up and repatriated! again we have the body of Richard III which has been dug up - let's stick to that. You also say they died for monarch and country - which seems to be based on the theory that the monarch is the "head of the body politic" - we have a constitutional monarchy now and I feel that such comments are anachronistic - I have the greatest respect for people who have laid down their lives for this country and fought often evil dictators - I have no respect for so-called "royals" likening killing to a computer game! In Medieval times common soldiers were buried in a common grave - the nobility were not buried with them and certainly not kings so this does not support burying Richard in Leicester - Richard I was not buried where he fell in battle - only his entrails were (as a deliberate insult to the people who had killed him!) - any other nobility would normally have been repatriated to where they came from or at least to a major (i.e. not Leicester!) cathedral near where they fell. If you reply I will not be able to get back to you until Monday. knibbsie

Report this post »

click2find

Jobs

Looking for a new career? Find a job in York and all around North Yorkshire

Search Now »
Dating

Love and friendship - find your perfect match.

Search Now »
Homes

Find properties for sale and rent in and around York.

Search Now »
Cars

Find used vehicles for sale all over Yorkshire and the North.

Search Now »

Newsquest (Yorkshire & North East) Ltd, 58 Church Street, Weybridge, Surrey. KT13 8DP |3223515|Registered in England & Wales

Let Richard III rest in peace in York (From York Press)

Letters RSS Feed