York Minster gets hate mail over Richard III’s last resting place

York Press: Richard III Richard III

HATE mail has been sent to the Dean of York and York Minster since they said they did not want to receive the remains of Richard III.

The cathedral’s representatives said last month that the bones of the last Yorkist king should be buried in Leicester, where they were found during an archaeological dig by the city’s university.

A Minster spokesman said yesterday: “York Minster has received a number of letters about Richard III, and a small number of these have been abusive.

“These have been passed to the Minster Police and they continue to monitor the situation closely.”

It is understood some letters have been sent to the Dean of York, the Very Rev Vivienne Faull, and York Central MP Hugh Bayley said he too had received such mail.

Meanwhile, a Government minister is to broker a summit meeting between York and Leicester in an attempt to resolve the row over the king’s remains.

Campaigners for Richard’s remains to be buried in York, who have compiled a 24,000-name petition, say it is what the monarch wanted. They are backed by his living descendants.

In the Commons yesterday, Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said he believed the University of Leicester should make the decision, but he would make arrangements for a meeting between representatives from there and York.

York Central MP Hugh Bayley said: “As the remains are those of a former head of state, the state should decide where and how they are reinterred – it should not be delegated to the University of Leicester.

“York believes it has a strong case, so does Leicester, so an independent committee should be set up to look at the views of all interested parties and advise the Government on what the burial arrangements should be.”

City of York Council chief executive Kersten England will form a York delegation to meet Leicester counterparts.

She said she hoped it would “take forward how we can best celebrate and commemorate Richard III”. Mr Bayley said if the meeting did not reach an agreement he would again call for the Government to decide Richard’s final resting place.

The York Central MP said he had received some “angry and abusive” letters.

But he said: “I have no time for that – we are talking about a king of England’s last resting place and we need a respectful conversation.”

York Outer MP Julian Sturdy told the debate the decision seemed to have been conducted “in a sort of finders-keepers agreement” and “hashed out behind closed doors”.

He said: “Perhaps what is even more frustrating is that Richard III’s own wishes seem not to have been consulted.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:41pm Wed 13 Mar 13

rothko says...

I fail to understand why people get excited and abusive over a monarch who has been dead for several centuries.

I think it would have been better for all concerned if he had been left to rest under the car park.
I fail to understand why people get excited and abusive over a monarch who has been dead for several centuries. I think it would have been better for all concerned if he had been left to rest under the car park. rothko
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Bucktrout says...

Minster Police?!
Minster Police?! Bucktrout
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Jeff_li says...

Bucktrout wrote:
Minster Police?!
From Wikipedia...

"There are now ten officers of the Minster Police, though they are no longer attested as constables and instead utilise 'any person' powers of citizen's arrest under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They do not carry batons or handcuffs. Their modern-day role is to act as custodians of over 380 sets of keys, to provide information and directions to tourists..."

Not sure what they can do about the emails other than 'mark as spam'.
[quote][p][bold]Bucktrout[/bold] wrote: Minster Police?![/p][/quote]From Wikipedia... "There are now ten officers of the Minster Police, though they are no longer attested as constables and instead utilise 'any person' powers of citizen's arrest under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They do not carry batons or handcuffs. Their modern-day role is to act as custodians of over 380 sets of keys, to provide information and directions to tourists..." Not sure what they can do about the emails other than 'mark as spam'. Jeff_li
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 13 Mar 13

hustler says...

The Minster Police, as far as I have seen, are internal security / caretakers for the building; rather than enforcers of the law !
The Minster Police, as far as I have seen, are internal security / caretakers for the building; rather than enforcers of the law ! hustler
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 13 Mar 13

again says...

Why give the culprits publicity? All trolls, are best ignored by sensible people.

"Campaigners for Richard’s remains to be buried in York, who have compiled a 24,000-name petition, say it is what the monarch wanted. They are backed by his living descendants."

I see the petition now over 25000 signatories.

Can be found here:

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/38772
Why give the culprits publicity? All trolls, are best ignored by sensible people. "Campaigners for Richard’s remains to be buried in York, who have compiled a 24,000-name petition, say it is what the monarch wanted. They are backed by his living descendants." I see the petition now over 25000 signatories. Can be found here: http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/38772 again
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 13 Mar 13

beretta says...

Come on you MINSTER men, use your brains. you have the means to knock a stone box up at the minster stone yard. Get him back here, chuck the bones in the box, pull the box in an unused corner of the minster stick a light over it and your income is bound to raise, you charge about 7 quid a time if your not a York resident, it's not as if he's going to eat much is it.
Come on you MINSTER men, use your brains. you have the means to knock a stone box up at the minster stone yard. Get him back here, chuck the bones in the box, pull the box in an unused corner of the minster stick a light over it and your income is bound to raise, you charge about 7 quid a time if your not a York resident, it's not as if he's going to eat much is it. beretta
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Wed 13 Mar 13

bolero says...

Oh! for goodness sake. R.I.P. Richard Three.
Oh! for goodness sake. R.I.P. Richard Three. bolero
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 13 Mar 13

MrsHoney says...

What a load of rubbish, why would anyone waste their time writing offensive letters to Minster staff? I personally don't care where he's buried but even for those that are interested (and I can't believe 24,000 people were interested in him before they dug him up!) why get so het up about it? And what about Leicester, are we going to pay them back all the money they invested in finding the skeleton? Cause it's bad enough council tax going on 20mph signs and wifi nevermind a load of bones!
What a load of rubbish, why would anyone waste their time writing offensive letters to Minster staff? I personally don't care where he's buried but even for those that are interested (and I can't believe 24,000 people were interested in him before they dug him up!) why get so het up about it? And what about Leicester, are we going to pay them back all the money they invested in finding the skeleton? Cause it's bad enough council tax going on 20mph signs and wifi nevermind a load of bones! MrsHoney
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Wed 13 Mar 13

airporttaxi says...

It's very lazy of the Press to keep continually repeating the same old tosh about Richard's 'living descendants'. King Richard III's children all died childless and he has no descendants.

This controversy is dogged by people repeating baseless assertions as though they were fact.
It's very lazy of the Press to keep continually repeating the same old tosh about Richard's 'living descendants'. King Richard III's children all died childless and he has no descendants. This controversy is dogged by people repeating baseless assertions as though they were fact. airporttaxi
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Stroppiness says...

Yawn - I wonder in how many guises the Press will run this story!

It is bad enough that A&E have managed to convince, not only Hugh Bayley, but Julian Sturdy also, that they should nail their colours to an ill fated campaign and make York and its residents look like idiots in the House of Commons earlier this week.

York didn't contribute to the costs of the research and the eventual excavation of Richard. They didn't even get involved to the best of my knowledge.Why then, do certain people, believe that as a city we have a God given right to have Richard buried here?!! Because his "surname" was York? Because he allegedly stated that he wanted to be buried at York Minster, despite not one bit of documentary evidence being produced to support this?

Also, it needs to be remembered that Richard was a Catholic, not CofE and therefore he would probably spin in his box if he wasn't given a Catholic burial!

It also beggars belief that people would waste their time and energy in writing abusive correspondence to the Minster - what are these people on because they are devoid of reality! The Minster is well within its rights to say no to Richard's remains - it is not run by the electorate and to those people who have an issue with it - vote with your feet and do not visit the Minster again if it means that much to you.

As I have repeatedly said on this story, this has nothing to do with the historical importance of where Richard should be buried. It has EVERYTHING to do with the great greedy corporate gravy train and the opportunity to make a quick buck - I'd bet a years salary that no-one will be able to go and see his remains for free, whether here or in Leicester. There will be a special "Richard III" exhibition that costs ££s to enter. Every tourist shop and stand will be churning out Richard tat for hapless tourists to buy.

This has nothing to do with the burial of the man, because lest us forget, he was a living breathing human being at one point and not the freak show his bones are turning into. Those that are pushing for this are doing so because they see the opportunity of making money, not because they actually believe that as a man, he has a right to be buried here.

Oh, and one last thing (phew you all say!!). Given the contents of this story, http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lei
cestershire-21768730
, I think the chances of Leicester giving him up are zero!!
Yawn - I wonder in how many guises the Press will run this story! It is bad enough that A&E have managed to convince, not only Hugh Bayley, but Julian Sturdy also, that they should nail their colours to an ill fated campaign and make York and its residents look like idiots in the House of Commons earlier this week. York didn't contribute to the costs of the research and the eventual excavation of Richard. They didn't even get involved to the best of my knowledge.Why then, do certain people, believe that as a city we have a God given right to have Richard buried here?!! Because his "surname" was York? Because he allegedly stated that he wanted to be buried at York Minster, despite not one bit of documentary evidence being produced to support this? Also, it needs to be remembered that Richard was a Catholic, not CofE and therefore he would probably spin in his box if he wasn't given a Catholic burial! It also beggars belief that people would waste their time and energy in writing abusive correspondence to the Minster - what are these people on because they are devoid of reality! The Minster is well within its rights to say no to Richard's remains - it is not run by the electorate and to those people who have an issue with it - vote with your feet and do not visit the Minster again if it means that much to you. As I have repeatedly said on this story, this has nothing to do with the historical importance of where Richard should be buried. It has EVERYTHING to do with the great greedy corporate gravy train and the opportunity to make a quick buck - I'd bet a years salary that no-one will be able to go and see his remains for free, whether here or in Leicester. There will be a special "Richard III" exhibition that costs ££s to enter. Every tourist shop and stand will be churning out Richard tat for hapless tourists to buy. This has nothing to do with the burial of the man, because lest us forget, he was a living breathing human being at one point and not the freak show his bones are turning into. Those that are pushing for this are doing so because they see the opportunity of making money, not because they actually believe that as a man, he has a right to be buried here. Oh, and one last thing (phew you all say!!). Given the contents of this story, http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lei cestershire-21768730 , I think the chances of Leicester giving him up are zero!! Stroppiness
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 13 Mar 13

capt spaulding says...

Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones..............h
eres the work of the lord
Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones..............h eres the work of the lord capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 13 Mar 13

R'Marcus says...

The Minster administrators should realise that the Minster belongs to the people of York.
The last time I counted, the majority of York residents want the remains of Richard !!! to be re-interred in York Minster.
Listen to the people, Minster adminstrators!
The Minster administrators should realise that the Minster belongs to the people of York. The last time I counted, the majority of York residents want the remains of Richard !!! to be re-interred in York Minster. Listen to the people, Minster adminstrators! R'Marcus
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Majority?
I think the majority probably couldn't give a you know what.
Majority? I think the majority probably couldn't give a you know what. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Stroppiness says...

R'Marcus wrote:
The Minster administrators should realise that the Minster belongs to the people of York. The last time I counted, the majority of York residents want the remains of Richard !!! to be re-interred in York Minster. Listen to the people, Minster adminstrators!
Sorry to burst your bubble but:-

a) The Minster doesn't belong to the people of York - it belongs to the Church of England and as such, they can do what they like with it, subject to planning and the fact that it is listed.

b) I'm a little worried about your ability to count. You state that the majority of York want him to be brought here. Firstly, I know no-one that actually cares whether he is here or in Leicester. Secondly, for there to be a majority of York to want him to come here, then in simple terms over half the population would be wanting it. The last time I looked, the e-petition had approximately 24000 signatures on it, not all from York. The population of York is in the region of 100000 (probably more now, but I don't have the most recent figures). This means that less than 25% of the population care enough to stand up and be counted - not the majority as you state.

In view of both points, I suspect that the "Minster administrators" (who actually do not exist- there are clergy and lay people running the Minster) will not listen to you or anyone else in the minority, nor do they have to!
[quote][p][bold]R'Marcus[/bold] wrote: The Minster administrators should realise that the Minster belongs to the people of York. The last time I counted, the majority of York residents want the remains of Richard !!! to be re-interred in York Minster. Listen to the people, Minster adminstrators![/p][/quote]Sorry to burst your bubble but:- a) The Minster doesn't belong to the people of York - it belongs to the Church of England and as such, they can do what they like with it, subject to planning and the fact that it is listed. b) I'm a little worried about your ability to count. You state that the majority of York want him to be brought here. Firstly, I know no-one that actually cares whether he is here or in Leicester. Secondly, for there to be a majority of York to want him to come here, then in simple terms over half the population would be wanting it. The last time I looked, the e-petition had approximately 24000 signatures on it, not all from York. The population of York is in the region of 100000 (probably more now, but I don't have the most recent figures). This means that less than 25% of the population care enough to stand up and be counted - not the majority as you state. In view of both points, I suspect that the "Minster administrators" (who actually do not exist- there are clergy and lay people running the Minster) will not listen to you or anyone else in the minority, nor do they have to! Stroppiness
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Wed 13 Mar 13

CHISSY1 says...

again wrote:
Why give the culprits publicity? All trolls, are best ignored by sensible people.

"Campaigners for Richard’s remains to be buried in York, who have compiled a 24,000-name petition, say it is what the monarch wanted. They are backed by his living descendants."

I see the petition now over 25000 signatories.

Can be found here:

http://epetitions.di

rect.gov.uk/petition

s/38772
"Get a hobby for goodness sake".
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: Why give the culprits publicity? All trolls, are best ignored by sensible people. "Campaigners for Richard’s remains to be buried in York, who have compiled a 24,000-name petition, say it is what the monarch wanted. They are backed by his living descendants." I see the petition now over 25000 signatories. Can be found here: http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/38772[/p][/quote]"Get a hobby for goodness sake". CHISSY1
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 13 Mar 13

RoseD says...

rothko wrote:
I fail to understand why people get excited and abusive over a monarch who has been dead for several centuries.

I think it would have been better for all concerned if he had been left to rest under the car park.
exactly!!!
[quote][p][bold]rothko[/bold] wrote: I fail to understand why people get excited and abusive over a monarch who has been dead for several centuries. I think it would have been better for all concerned if he had been left to rest under the car park.[/p][/quote]exactly!!! RoseD
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Wed 13 Mar 13

RoseD says...

airporttaxi wrote:
It's very lazy of the Press to keep continually repeating the same old tosh about Richard's 'living descendants'. King Richard III's children all died childless and he has no descendants.

This controversy is dogged by people repeating baseless assertions as though they were fact.
yes thank you!! he has NO direct descendants, none.
[quote][p][bold]airporttaxi[/bold] wrote: It's very lazy of the Press to keep continually repeating the same old tosh about Richard's 'living descendants'. King Richard III's children all died childless and he has no descendants. This controversy is dogged by people repeating baseless assertions as though they were fact.[/p][/quote]yes thank you!! he has NO direct descendants, none. RoseD
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Wed 13 Mar 13

bolero says...

Good job he wasn't buried in a car park in York. He'd have a few tickets by now.
Good job he wasn't buried in a car park in York. He'd have a few tickets by now. bolero
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Seadog says...

Nobody actually knows who owns the Minster. No English cathedral has ever been sold, therefore no solicitor has ever carried out the requisite "search". Parish churches (at least nominally) belong to the incumbent (where there is one) and Wardens such as myself (albeit under the restraining auspices of the Church Commissioners) but the Minster is not a parish church ... in fact it lies within the parish of St Michael-le-Belfrey. It is certainly not the property of the Archbishop, who merely retains his cathedra (seat) there, and who may not enter the building (except on Christmas and Easter Days) unless specifically invited to do so by the Dean and Chapter.

But even the Dean and Chapter does not own the building ... it is entrusted to their care by ... well ... who knows? The monarch, perhaps, since 1534 at anyrate! But - so far as I'm aware - the monarch (despite her role as "Supreme Governor in Earth of the Church in England" makes no claim of ownership over the building ... except in the very general sense that she is overlord of us all from whom we all hold such property as we have (even if we HAVE paid off our mortgages in full!) in "fee simple".

Suffice it to say that whoever owns the building, any decision to bury RIII in it (or not) would of necessity involve the Crown, the Church Commissioners, Parliament and the Dean and Chapter at the very least.

I honestly don't know who would have the final say regarding the eventual deposition of Richard's bones, but I do know that it most emphatically would have absolutely nothing to do with City of York Council ... although said august body would of course be as entitled to make its representations to any such board of enquiry as may be be convened as any other interested party ... whether the Richard III Society, the Freemasons, the Flat Earthers or the Ancient Order of Honourably Odd Rotorblades.
Nobody actually knows who owns the Minster. No English cathedral has ever been sold, therefore no solicitor has ever carried out the requisite "search". Parish churches (at least nominally) belong to the incumbent (where there is one) and Wardens such as myself (albeit under the restraining auspices of the Church Commissioners) but the Minster is not a parish church ... in fact it lies within the parish of St Michael-le-Belfrey. It is certainly not the property of the Archbishop, who merely retains his cathedra (seat) there, and who may not enter the building (except on Christmas and Easter Days) unless specifically invited to do so by the Dean and Chapter. But even the Dean and Chapter does not own the building ... it is entrusted to their care by ... well ... who knows? The monarch, perhaps, since 1534 at anyrate! But - so far as I'm aware - the monarch (despite her role as "Supreme Governor in Earth of the Church in England" makes no claim of ownership over the building ... except in the very general sense that she is overlord of us all from whom we all hold such property as we have (even if we HAVE paid off our mortgages in full!) in "fee simple". Suffice it to say that whoever owns the building, any decision to bury RIII in it (or not) would of necessity involve the Crown, the Church Commissioners, Parliament and the Dean and Chapter at the very least. I honestly don't know who would have the final say regarding the eventual deposition of Richard's bones, but I do know that it most emphatically would have absolutely nothing to do with City of York Council ... although said august body would of course be as entitled to make its representations to any such board of enquiry as may be be convened as any other interested party ... whether the Richard III Society, the Freemasons, the Flat Earthers or the Ancient Order of Honourably Odd Rotorblades. Seadog
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 13 Mar 13

CaroleBaines says...

Abusive emails? Is the Dean trying to get some affordable housing built on the Minster Gardens?
Abusive emails? Is the Dean trying to get some affordable housing built on the Minster Gardens? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Yorkie-Clifton says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Abusive emails? Is the Dean trying to get some affordable housing built on the Minster Gardens?
I am sorry that people feel so incensed at the Trustees of York Minster feel that they do not want the mortal remains of a King of England . Who is this New Dean ?? She has very strong connections with Leicester . Even -- n 2000 she was appointed Provost of Leicester (the first women to lead a Church of England cathedral), becoming Dean of Leicester in 2002. Need i say any-more . People in Glass Houses should not Throw Stones . Yes the Minster Authorities will close ranks to support a very bad appointment . The Archbishop has a great say in who the Trustees will be . Over and out .
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Abusive emails? Is the Dean trying to get some affordable housing built on the Minster Gardens?[/p][/quote]I am sorry that people feel so incensed at the Trustees of York Minster feel that they do not want the mortal remains of a King of England . Who is this New Dean ?? She has very strong connections with Leicester . Even -- n 2000 she was appointed Provost of Leicester (the first women to lead a Church of England cathedral), becoming Dean of Leicester in 2002. Need i say any-more . People in Glass Houses should not Throw Stones . Yes the Minster Authorities will close ranks to support a very bad appointment . The Archbishop has a great say in who the Trustees will be . Over and out . Yorkie-Clifton
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Yorkie-Clifton says...

I really do hope that THE PRESS will submit an article on the New Dean and her background . Very bad appointment . I for one will be changing my Will with deep regret .
I really do hope that THE PRESS will submit an article on the New Dean and her background . Very bad appointment . I for one will be changing my Will with deep regret . Yorkie-Clifton
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Wed 13 Mar 13

NoMorePlease says...

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:
I really do hope that THE PRESS will submit an article on the New Dean and her background . Very bad appointment . I for one will be changing my Will with deep regret .
Why was it a bad appointment? You have said this twice tonight and a few times in the past. Just sounds prejudice and sour grapes,to me.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie-Clifton[/bold] wrote: I really do hope that THE PRESS will submit an article on the New Dean and her background . Very bad appointment . I for one will be changing my Will with deep regret .[/p][/quote]Why was it a bad appointment? You have said this twice tonight and a few times in the past. Just sounds prejudice and sour grapes,to me. NoMorePlease
  • Score: 0

12:31am Thu 14 Mar 13

Orion Stars says...

Speaking on contributions of costs on excavation research and York didn't share in that is not a fair reason to depend on , it would have been done anyhow no matter who was he until they test the DNA , after the discovery of the remains new historical facts have emerged in particular the humiliating manner of burial also the brutal way of killing him , it's like a correction for a lost page of writing the history to one of the Greatest Brave Kings , having him in York is giving him dignity , not necessarily at the Minster , yet we can build him a special respectable place .
Speaking on contributions of costs on excavation research and York didn't share in that is not a fair reason to depend on , it would have been done anyhow no matter who was he until they test the DNA , after the discovery of the remains new historical facts have emerged in particular the humiliating manner of burial also the brutal way of killing him , it's like a correction for a lost page of writing the history to one of the Greatest Brave Kings , having him in York is giving him dignity , not necessarily at the Minster , yet we can build him a special respectable place . Orion Stars
  • Score: 0

9:16am Thu 14 Mar 13

Firedrake says...

Seadog - aren't you forgetting the Priory of Sion and the Rosiecrucians?
Seadog - aren't you forgetting the Priory of Sion and the Rosiecrucians? Firedrake
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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