Richard III petition continues to grow

8:31am Monday 11th February 2013 in News

THE petition to have Richard III buried at York Minster was “trending” several times over the weekend as the most popular petition on the Government’s electronic petition webpage.

This morning, it was approaching 19,000 signatures.

A similar petition for the Yorkist King’s body to remain in Leicester had attracted nearly 7,000 signatures.

Related links

Comments(15)

Woody G Mellor says...
9:05am Mon 11 Feb 13

It is starkly obvious that York is more passionate about this than Leicester. Bring him home and respect his remains. He should not be left where he was murdered, mutilated and humiliated.

Report this post »

NoMorePlease says...
12:20pm Mon 11 Feb 13

" He should not be left where he was murdered, mutilated and humiliated"

Not in the city of Leicester

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
12:41pm Mon 11 Feb 13

The petitions do not indicate that York is more passionate about Richard than Leicester. The Law already states that Richard will be buried in Leicester - so it is remarkable that so many people have signed the Leicester petition.

Richard was not murdered in Leicester. He was not multilated in Leicester. He was not humiliated in Leicester.

All these things were done by Henry VII, who York gave the freedom of their city to and commemorated in the Rose Window at York Minster.

Leicester was just the burial site, where has has rested in peace for over 500 years - and will continue to do so.

Report this post »

again says...
1:14pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Leicester only wants Richard iii for commercial reasons. Any personal or historical link is weak, non-existent or negative.

The wishes of his descendants should be respected, i.e. that he should rest in York.

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
2:20pm Mon 11 Feb 13

A large proportion of the native population of England can trace ancestry to Edward III and therefore, to Richard III also.

We can't all be consulted...

Out of interest, if Richard were to be re-intered in York, would a visit to his tomb be free? Would i be able to come and see Leicester's King and get a free meal and lodgings? York surely wouldn't be interested in the commercial aspect eh?

Leicester doesn't want Richard III. He has been here for centuries and will remain here. We aren't trying to justify keeping his remains. They are already in Leicester and by the Law of the land, will be remaining in Leicester.

Report this post »

bloodaxe says...
7:05pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Old_Town_Leicester wrote:
The petitions do not indicate that York is more passionate about Richard than Leicester. The Law already states that Richard will be buried in Leicester - so it is remarkable that so many people have signed the Leicester petition.

Richard was not murdered in Leicester. He was not multilated in Leicester. He was not humiliated in Leicester.

All these things were done by Henry VII, who York gave the freedom of their city to and commemorated in the Rose Window at York Minster.

Leicester was just the burial site, where has has rested in peace for over 500 years - and will continue to do so.
Hmmm...you should read the unequivocal statement issued on August 23, 1485 by the Mayor's Serjeant of the Mace. It leaves little doubt as to the nature of the official response to Richard's death. As for the Rose Window, that's realpolitik. It wasn't wise to upset the Tudors. A vicious and unforgiving bunch of userpers. At least Richard could claim legitimate descent through the Mortimers, from the Duke of Clarence. Henry Tudor was the son of a paedophile, Edmund Tudor, whose wife was fourteen when Henry was born and had absolutely no claim to the throne. Over the top ? Why not. These are heady times. As for Leicester's claim, irrelevant; the body will stay in Leicester because the law says it must. Unlike the Tudors, we 're a law abiding folk up here.

Report this post »

Paul Meoff says...
7:34am Tue 12 Feb 13

Throw him back down the hole he came out of in Leicester. It's been his home for 500 years and he's probably missing the rumble of cars overhead keeping him company.

Report this post »

Sillybillies says...
2:04pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Henry Tudor was the son of a paedophile, Edmund Tudor, whose wife was fourteen when Henry was born....Utter rubbish and a poor understanding of history
The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12.
You can't judge the Middle Ages by our standards. They would be appalled at the cess pit our society has become.

Report this post »

Sillybillies says...
2:06pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Henry Tudor was the son of a paedophile, Edmund Tudor, whose wife was fourteen when Henry was born....


Utter rubbish and a poor understanding of history

The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12.


You can't judge the Middle Ages by our standards. They would be appalled at the cess pit our society has become.

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
4:42pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Old Town Leicester should read this from Bygone Leicestershire - written in 1892 but still a well regarded book - "It (Richard's body) was publicly exposed during two days, and insulted with barbarous indecency by the people" - perhaps I should set up a website to rebury Mussolini in Milan? Anyway as he thinks that Richard calling Leicester Castle "Our castle of Leicester" means he loved Leicester when he would have called all English castles his? - have a look on the Leicester Mercury website where it states as a theory that Richard stayed at an inn in Leicester rather than the castle because he couldn't trust the people of Leicester yours truly knibbsie (of leicester)

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
5:43pm Tue 12 Feb 13

So have you got the source material for the "barbarous indecency" meeted out to Richard, or is this flowery prose on the part of the author of Bygone Leicestershire?

Report this post »

knibbsie says...
9:41am Wed 13 Feb 13

Have you got any source material that gives a different position - or I suppose people queued up in an orderly fashion to view Richard III "lying in state" (or rather "lying in a state") Leicester is completly inappropriate as a resting place for Richard - that is a matter of ethics and morality not your rather specious view of history.

Report this post »

Woody G Mellor says...
9:48am Wed 13 Feb 13

Old_Town_Leicester wrote:
So have you got the source material for the "barbarous indecency" meeted out to Richard, or is this flowery prose on the part of the author of Bygone Leicestershire?
You want hard evidence? Here!

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lei
cestershire-21063882


I look forward to your reply.

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
9:51am Wed 13 Feb 13

There is nothing specious about my view of history. Without any source material regarding how Richard's body was treated during the two days before his burial - there is nothing anyone could say that is plausible, rather than speculation.

You must be able to admit that Bygone Leicestershire hardly goes into great detail about Richard III and the authors assertations, that don't reference any source and are made centuries after the event; might just be specious...

Report this post »

Old_Town_Leicester says...
9:53am Wed 13 Feb 13

Woody, you have sent me to a link about humiliation injuries. These were most likely inflicted by enemy forces at or after Bosworth. They don't point to Richard being abused by the citizens of Leicester?

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree