Richard III campaigners stage march through York

Richard III campaigners stage march through York

Venessa Roe 16th niece of Richard III joins supporters before a march through the streets of York campaigning for his remains to be returned to the city .

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

Richard 111 campaigners stage march through York

First published in News
Last updated

CAMPAIGNERS calling for Richard III's remains to be buried in York staged a march through the city today, prior to a High Court hearing tomorrow.

Supporters of the Plantagenet Alliance, a group of descendants including Richard's 16th great-niece Vanessa Roe, gathered at Clifford's Tower this morning before parading through the city centre to raise awareness of the issue.

The monarch's skeleton is due to be re-interred in Leicester Cathedral after being found under a car park in the city in 2012.

But the Alliance has brought a judicial review in an attempt to have the burial licence quashed and a consultation launched on where he should be interred.

Its legal representatives will argue during a two day hearing that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which granted the licence, failed to consult the public.

Vanessa said: "York has very strong connections with Richard. This is where he grew up, his family is from the north of England.

"He only spent nine days in Leicester, which was a Lancastrian place. It has no connections with him whatsoever."

She said Leicester's argument was just one of 'finders, keepers.'

Mary Ann Dearlove, from York, said she was taking part in the march because 'this is where he belongs, not under some car park or even some cathedral a long way away.'

Another marcher, Kate Wescombe, from York, said: "He should be buried back here. He had some connections with here in life. His connections with Leicester were only in death... It's about doing the right thing."

The University of Leicester, which found the remains during a dig and wants them to be re-buried in Leicester, said it looked forward to a final outcome to the case brought by the Alliance, adding: "We continue to work in partnership with Leicester Cathedral and Leicester City Council for a reinterment of King Richard III with dignity and honour in Leicester."

The Ministry of Justice has expressed disappointment that the Alliance was granted permission to challenge the licence, which it said had been granted by the Ministry following due process.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:33pm Wed 12 Mar 14

oldgoat says...

Someone sack the sub editor!
Headline reads 'Richard the one-hundred-and-elev
enth'....

It's I (capital I) not 1 (one)......
Someone sack the sub editor! Headline reads 'Richard the one-hundred-and-elev enth'.... It's I (capital I) not 1 (one)...... oldgoat
  • Score: 10

3:40pm Wed 12 Mar 14

StarB74 says...

I'm there in spirit!!!

Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise?
I'm there in spirit!!! Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise? StarB74
  • Score: 19

4:55pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Caecilius says...

StarB74 wrote:
I'm there in spirit!!!

Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise?
There are quite valid arguments for burying him elsewhere. He was born at Fotheringhay, which is where his father and eldest brother were buried in the family mausoleum. He spent some of his formative years at Middleham, which was also his main home between 1471 and 1483 - his son was born and died there. His wife is buried in Westminster Abbey, where Richard, as a king of England, also has a good claim to lie. I grant you that there's not much of a case for Leicester but to be honest, York's claim really isn't that strong - it was never really his home.
[quote][p][bold]StarB74[/bold] wrote: I'm there in spirit!!! Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise?[/p][/quote]There are quite valid arguments for burying him elsewhere. He was born at Fotheringhay, which is where his father and eldest brother were buried in the family mausoleum. He spent some of his formative years at Middleham, which was also his main home between 1471 and 1483 - his son was born and died there. His wife is buried in Westminster Abbey, where Richard, as a king of England, also has a good claim to lie. I grant you that there's not much of a case for Leicester but to be honest, York's claim really isn't that strong - it was never really his home. Caecilius
  • Score: 4

6:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

historian20 says...

Leicester was a Lancastrian place? Really? Richard III must have been a bit of an idiot then, gathering his army for battle in a town loyal to his enemy. What a pillock! No wonder he lost.

Like so much claimed by the so-called Plantagenet Alliance, that's not only untrue, it's obviously untrue. A child can see it's untrue. The sad fact (sad for these obsessives) is that in his 32 years on this Earth, Richard spent about five weeks in York. He did not grow up here. His family were not from the North of England. The Plantaganets were an East Midlands family whose home was just south of Leicester, as it happens. That was where Richard was born, where he grew up, and where - as soon as he was King - he had his father and brother reburied, brought hoem from their original graves in Yorkshire.

Most people in York are fed up with this nonsense being constantly spouted in the name of a city that doesn't want Richard's bones.

StarB74, there is a very strong case for Leicester. which is that the King of England order his burial there and marked it with a magnificent marble monument. The Government wants a Leicester burial, the Church of England wants a Leicester burial. No-one wants a York burial exept a handful of fantasists in fancy dress.
Leicester was a Lancastrian place? Really? Richard III must have been a bit of an idiot then, gathering his army for battle in a town loyal to his enemy. What a pillock! No wonder he lost. Like so much claimed by the so-called Plantagenet Alliance, that's not only untrue, it's obviously untrue. A child can see it's untrue. The sad fact (sad for these obsessives) is that in his 32 years on this Earth, Richard spent about five weeks in York. He did not grow up here. His family were not from the North of England. The Plantaganets were an East Midlands family whose home was just south of Leicester, as it happens. That was where Richard was born, where he grew up, and where - as soon as he was King - he had his father and brother reburied, brought hoem from their original graves in Yorkshire. Most people in York are fed up with this nonsense being constantly spouted in the name of a city that doesn't want Richard's bones. StarB74, there is a very strong case for Leicester. which is that the King of England order his burial there and marked it with a magnificent marble monument. The Government wants a Leicester burial, the Church of England wants a Leicester burial. No-one wants a York burial exept a handful of fantasists in fancy dress. historian20
  • Score: -7

7:37pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Blancsanglier says...

Caecilius wrote:
StarB74 wrote:
I'm there in spirit!!!

Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise?
There are quite valid arguments for burying him elsewhere. He was born at Fotheringhay, which is where his father and eldest brother were buried in the family mausoleum. He spent some of his formative years at Middleham, which was also his main home between 1471 and 1483 - his son was born and died there. His wife is buried in Westminster Abbey, where Richard, as a king of England, also has a good claim to lie. I grant you that there's not much of a case for Leicester but to be honest, York's claim really isn't that strong - it was never really his home.
York itself wasn't his home - but Yorkshire was. He was Lord of the North for 12 years and lived in Middleham, he had other Yorkshire castles and he had exchanged some of his Southern properties for Northern ones. He didn't like the South and referred to York as 'coming home' in a letter to the Mayor. The only connection that Richard with Leicester was - he died there. They can keep all of their museums, statues and the Battlefield but they must not have his body - they do not need that, let this King who thought first of the 'common man' to 'the wele of us all' finally be honoured and given the respect he most truly deserves. Let him Rest In Peace and let him have his 'home coming' at last.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StarB74[/bold] wrote: I'm there in spirit!!! Richard III MUST be re-interred in York! How can anyone justify otherwise?[/p][/quote]There are quite valid arguments for burying him elsewhere. He was born at Fotheringhay, which is where his father and eldest brother were buried in the family mausoleum. He spent some of his formative years at Middleham, which was also his main home between 1471 and 1483 - his son was born and died there. His wife is buried in Westminster Abbey, where Richard, as a king of England, also has a good claim to lie. I grant you that there's not much of a case for Leicester but to be honest, York's claim really isn't that strong - it was never really his home.[/p][/quote]York itself wasn't his home - but Yorkshire was. He was Lord of the North for 12 years and lived in Middleham, he had other Yorkshire castles and he had exchanged some of his Southern properties for Northern ones. He didn't like the South and referred to York as 'coming home' in a letter to the Mayor. The only connection that Richard with Leicester was - he died there. They can keep all of their museums, statues and the Battlefield but they must not have his body - they do not need that, let this King who thought first of the 'common man' to 'the wele of us all' finally be honoured and given the respect he most truly deserves. Let him Rest In Peace and let him have his 'home coming' at last. Blancsanglier
  • Score: 9

7:45pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Blancsanglier says...

historian20 wrote:
Leicester was a Lancastrian place? Really? Richard III must have been a bit of an idiot then, gathering his army for battle in a town loyal to his enemy. What a pillock! No wonder he lost.

Like so much claimed by the so-called Plantagenet Alliance, that's not only untrue, it's obviously untrue. A child can see it's untrue. The sad fact (sad for these obsessives) is that in his 32 years on this Earth, Richard spent about five weeks in York. He did not grow up here. His family were not from the North of England. The Plantaganets were an East Midlands family whose home was just south of Leicester, as it happens. That was where Richard was born, where he grew up, and where - as soon as he was King - he had his father and brother reburied, brought hoem from their original graves in Yorkshire.

Most people in York are fed up with this nonsense being constantly spouted in the name of a city that doesn't want Richard's bones.

StarB74, there is a very strong case for Leicester. which is that the King of England order his burial there and marked it with a magnificent marble monument. The Government wants a Leicester burial, the Church of England wants a Leicester burial. No-one wants a York burial exept a handful of fantasists in fancy dress.
Richard was born in Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire - not Leicestershire. He didn't 'grow up' there, he left when he was about 7. Richard had his brother and father repatriated to Fotheringhay in NORTHAMPTONSHIRE because it was their family castle. They were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians - not Yorkists. The 'magnificent marble monument' that the usurper supposedly marked his paltry grave with cost all of £10 and that was not commissioned until 10 years later - just as Perkin Warbeck was a threat and so therefore a political move. The 'handful' of fantasists number many, many thousands worldwide - and only one was in costume.
[quote][p][bold]historian20[/bold] wrote: Leicester was a Lancastrian place? Really? Richard III must have been a bit of an idiot then, gathering his army for battle in a town loyal to his enemy. What a pillock! No wonder he lost. Like so much claimed by the so-called Plantagenet Alliance, that's not only untrue, it's obviously untrue. A child can see it's untrue. The sad fact (sad for these obsessives) is that in his 32 years on this Earth, Richard spent about five weeks in York. He did not grow up here. His family were not from the North of England. The Plantaganets were an East Midlands family whose home was just south of Leicester, as it happens. That was where Richard was born, where he grew up, and where - as soon as he was King - he had his father and brother reburied, brought hoem from their original graves in Yorkshire. Most people in York are fed up with this nonsense being constantly spouted in the name of a city that doesn't want Richard's bones. StarB74, there is a very strong case for Leicester. which is that the King of England order his burial there and marked it with a magnificent marble monument. The Government wants a Leicester burial, the Church of England wants a Leicester burial. No-one wants a York burial exept a handful of fantasists in fancy dress.[/p][/quote]Richard was born in Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire - not Leicestershire. He didn't 'grow up' there, he left when he was about 7. Richard had his brother and father repatriated to Fotheringhay in NORTHAMPTONSHIRE because it was their family castle. They were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians - not Yorkists. The 'magnificent marble monument' that the usurper supposedly marked his paltry grave with cost all of £10 and that was not commissioned until 10 years later - just as Perkin Warbeck was a threat and so therefore a political move. The 'handful' of fantasists number many, many thousands worldwide - and only one was in costume. Blancsanglier
  • Score: 10

7:51pm Wed 12 Mar 14

historian20 says...

Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him.

And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.
Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop. historian20
  • Score: -5

8:19pm Wed 12 Mar 14

historian20 says...

Yes, Richard of York and his son Edmund were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians. What do you think those Lancastrians were doing in Yorkshire? Living there, that's what.

In the Wars of the Roses, most of the support for the Yorkists was in the Midlands and the South, most of the support for the Lancastrians was in the North. That's why Edward sent Richard to govern the North - because the people there were loyal to the Tudors and could not be trusted. There was no love between Yorkshire and the Plantagenets - quite the opposite. If the North had been a Yorkist area, it wouldn't have needed a Governor.
Yes, Richard of York and his son Edmund were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians. What do you think those Lancastrians were doing in Yorkshire? Living there, that's what. In the Wars of the Roses, most of the support for the Yorkists was in the Midlands and the South, most of the support for the Lancastrians was in the North. That's why Edward sent Richard to govern the North - because the people there were loyal to the Tudors and could not be trusted. There was no love between Yorkshire and the Plantagenets - quite the opposite. If the North had been a Yorkist area, it wouldn't have needed a Governor. historian20
  • Score: -5

11:17pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Omega Point says...

"his remains to be returned to the city" - you can only return something that was previously there
"his remains to be returned to the city" - you can only return something that was previously there Omega Point
  • Score: 5

11:14am Thu 13 Mar 14

again says...

"It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work."

First, I think it is not greed that motivates the Alliance; they see York as the appropriate place to bury King Richard, not Leicester.

I can't see any reason why he should be buried in Leicester other than his tomb would be a draw for tourists and make money for the city. If any claimant is more likely to be motivated by greed it is the supporters of Leicester.

And when people start throwing around accusations such as Historian20 has then it would suggest they know they have a weak case.
"It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work." First, I think it is not greed that motivates the Alliance; they see York as the appropriate place to bury King Richard, not Leicester. I can't see any reason why he should be buried in Leicester other than his tomb would be a draw for tourists and make money for the city. If any claimant is more likely to be motivated by greed it is the supporters of Leicester. And when people start throwing around accusations such as Historian20 has then it would suggest they know they have a weak case. again
  • Score: 5

3:19pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PhilR@Strike says...

historian20 wrote:
Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.
"Richard of York"
Theres a clue in the name!....... simples! :)
[quote][p][bold]historian20[/bold] wrote: Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.[/p][/quote]"Richard of York" Theres a clue in the name!....... simples! :) PhilR@Strike
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Alf Garnett says...

historian20 wrote:
Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him.

And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.
Funny that he wanted to endow a chantry in the Minster for the saying of masses for his soul. He also paid for the top storey of Monk Bar. He clearly had some feeling for the place. As for reciprocation, the Lord Mayor's Serjeant of The Mace expressed the city's lamentation for his murder (sic) the day after Bosworth. I don't think any other city is on record as having done similarly. Presumably, given the haste of burial, Henry was quite happy to get him dumped as quickly as possible by whomsoever was prepared to do it. Leicester was the nearest city.
[quote][p][bold]historian20[/bold] wrote: Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.[/p][/quote]Funny that he wanted to endow a chantry in the Minster for the saying of masses for his soul. He also paid for the top storey of Monk Bar. He clearly had some feeling for the place. As for reciprocation, the Lord Mayor's Serjeant of The Mace expressed the city's lamentation for his murder (sic) the day after Bosworth. I don't think any other city is on record as having done similarly. Presumably, given the haste of burial, Henry was quite happy to get him dumped as quickly as possible by whomsoever was prepared to do it. Leicester was the nearest city. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 3

4:11pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Alf Garnett says...

PhilR@Strike wrote:
historian20 wrote:
Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.
"Richard of York"
Theres a clue in the name!....... simples! :)
Though to be fair, that was not his ttle. He was Duke of Gloucester before becoming king.
[quote][p][bold]PhilR@Strike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]historian20[/bold] wrote: Middleham is further from York than Fotheringhay is from Leicester. York Minster isn't even the nearest cathedral to Middleham. You think he should be buried in Middleham, argue for Middleham,. But his time in Middleham is no reason to bury him in York, a city that meant almost nothing to him. And he did NOT die in Leicester. He died at Bosworth. Henry could have had Richard's body taken anywhere - Nottingham, Coventry, London, even York. He chose to take it to Leicester. That's Richard's connection with Leicester - the King of England ordered his Christian burial there and then built a monument on the spot. He spent 500 years in Leicester. He spent five weeks in York. It's just sheer greed that keeps people arguing for York - the chance to make money out of something without having to spend or do any work. It's doing irreparable damage to the city's reputation and most people want it to stop.[/p][/quote]"Richard of York" Theres a clue in the name!....... simples! :)[/p][/quote]Though to be fair, that was not his ttle. He was Duke of Gloucester before becoming king. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 1

4:34pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Firedrake says...

PhilR@Strike: No it isn't "simples". He was NOT Richard of York ... he was Richard of GLOUCESTER, as other posters have repeatedly pointed out throughout this debate. (Richard of York was his FATHER!)

Personally, I don't mind where he's buried, so long as it's done decently with all the appropriate obsequies.

By the way, I'm not advocating Gloucester Cathedral either ... they've already got Edward II, who just happened to meet his (somewhat painful!) end nearby ... which rather neatly parallels Leicester's claim if you think about it!

As for historian20's point about York (I presume he/she means the Minster) wanting to "make money out of something without having to spend or do any work": ... nothing could be further than th truth! For a start, an exemption would have to be sought to the 1854 "Order in Council" which forbids the burial of uncremated human remains in ANY York church after that year, to say nothing of the permissions and approvals which would have to be got from the Fabric Avisory Committe; Cathedrals Fabric Advisory Committee and English Heritage etc etc etc ... as Leicester has already discoverved to her considerable cost! (And then there's the cost of the tomb itself ... though I suppose the Plantagenet Alliance might pay for that!)

Unfortunately the proponants of both sides of this arguement are still displaying a woeful lack of basic, background knowledge.
PhilR@Strike: No it isn't "simples". He was NOT Richard of York ... he was Richard of GLOUCESTER, as other posters have repeatedly pointed out throughout this debate. (Richard of York was his FATHER!) Personally, I don't mind where he's buried, so long as it's done decently with all the appropriate obsequies. By the way, I'm not advocating Gloucester Cathedral either ... they've already got Edward II, who just happened to meet his (somewhat painful!) end nearby ... which rather neatly parallels Leicester's claim if you think about it! As for historian20's point about York (I presume he/she means the Minster) wanting to "make money out of something without having to spend or do any work": ... nothing could be further than th truth! For a start, an exemption would have to be sought to the 1854 "Order in Council" which forbids the burial of uncremated human remains in ANY York church after that year, to say nothing of the permissions and approvals which would have to be got from the Fabric Avisory Committe; Cathedrals Fabric Advisory Committee and English Heritage etc etc etc ... as Leicester has already discoverved to her considerable cost! (And then there's the cost of the tomb itself ... though I suppose the Plantagenet Alliance might pay for that!) Unfortunately the proponants of both sides of this arguement are still displaying a woeful lack of basic, background knowledge. Firedrake
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Alf Garnett says...

historian20 wrote:
Yes, Richard of York and his son Edmund were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians. What do you think those Lancastrians were doing in Yorkshire? Living there, that's what.

In the Wars of the Roses, most of the support for the Yorkists was in the Midlands and the South, most of the support for the Lancastrians was in the North. That's why Edward sent Richard to govern the North - because the people there were loyal to the Tudors and could not be trusted. There was no love between Yorkshire and the Plantagenets - quite the opposite. If the North had been a Yorkist area, it wouldn't have needed a Governor.
The Tudors ? Henry VII based his tenuous claim through his mother Margaret Beaufort who had a thin claim herself from her Lancastrian forebears. Henry VI was Lancastrian and it was he who Edward IV replaced as King. Henry saw himself as restoring the Lancastrian succession, though this had itself been userped by Henry Bolingbroke from Richard II. Plantagenet. To speak of the Tudors as a threat before 1485 is unhistorical. Henry VII's unified rose emblem marks the emergence of the idea of the Tudors and with Henry VIII's commissioning from Holbein a wall-painting for Whitehall Palace, completed in 1537 the Tudor dynasty was self-consciously created. Shakespeare did the rest. Interestingly, the Plantagenets were the last royal house which could say that it was English. Since then we have had Welsh, Scottish, Dutch and German houses.
[quote][p][bold]historian20[/bold] wrote: Yes, Richard of York and his son Edmund were executed in Yorkshire by Lancastrians. What do you think those Lancastrians were doing in Yorkshire? Living there, that's what. In the Wars of the Roses, most of the support for the Yorkists was in the Midlands and the South, most of the support for the Lancastrians was in the North. That's why Edward sent Richard to govern the North - because the people there were loyal to the Tudors and could not be trusted. There was no love between Yorkshire and the Plantagenets - quite the opposite. If the North had been a Yorkist area, it wouldn't have needed a Governor.[/p][/quote]The Tudors ? Henry VII based his tenuous claim through his mother Margaret Beaufort who had a thin claim herself from her Lancastrian forebears. Henry VI was Lancastrian and it was he who Edward IV replaced as King. Henry saw himself as restoring the Lancastrian succession, though this had itself been userped by Henry Bolingbroke from Richard II. Plantagenet. To speak of the Tudors as a threat before 1485 is unhistorical. Henry VII's unified rose emblem marks the emergence of the idea of the Tudors and with Henry VIII's commissioning from Holbein a wall-painting for Whitehall Palace, completed in 1537 the Tudor dynasty was self-consciously created. Shakespeare did the rest. Interestingly, the Plantagenets were the last royal house which could say that it was English. Since then we have had Welsh, Scottish, Dutch and German houses. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PhilR@Strike says...

Firedrake wrote:
PhilR@Strike: No it isn't "simples". He was NOT Richard of York ... he was Richard of GLOUCESTER, as other posters have repeatedly pointed out throughout this debate. (Richard of York was his FATHER!) Personally, I don't mind where he's buried, so long as it's done decently with all the appropriate obsequies. By the way, I'm not advocating Gloucester Cathedral either ... they've already got Edward II, who just happened to meet his (somewhat painful!) end nearby ... which rather neatly parallels Leicester's claim if you think about it! As for historian20's point about York (I presume he/she means the Minster) wanting to "make money out of something without having to spend or do any work": ... nothing could be further than th truth! For a start, an exemption would have to be sought to the 1854 "Order in Council" which forbids the burial of uncremated human remains in ANY York church after that year, to say nothing of the permissions and approvals which would have to be got from the Fabric Avisory Committe; Cathedrals Fabric Advisory Committee and English Heritage etc etc etc ... as Leicester has already discoverved to her considerable cost! (And then there's the cost of the tomb itself ... though I suppose the Plantagenet Alliance might pay for that!) Unfortunately the proponants of both sides of this arguement are still displaying a woeful lack of basic, background knowledge.
I stand corrected.
"Richard of Gloucester gave Battle in Vain?" ........
[quote][p][bold]Firedrake[/bold] wrote: PhilR@Strike: No it isn't "simples". He was NOT Richard of York ... he was Richard of GLOUCESTER, as other posters have repeatedly pointed out throughout this debate. (Richard of York was his FATHER!) Personally, I don't mind where he's buried, so long as it's done decently with all the appropriate obsequies. By the way, I'm not advocating Gloucester Cathedral either ... they've already got Edward II, who just happened to meet his (somewhat painful!) end nearby ... which rather neatly parallels Leicester's claim if you think about it! As for historian20's point about York (I presume he/she means the Minster) wanting to "make money out of something without having to spend or do any work": ... nothing could be further than th truth! For a start, an exemption would have to be sought to the 1854 "Order in Council" which forbids the burial of uncremated human remains in ANY York church after that year, to say nothing of the permissions and approvals which would have to be got from the Fabric Avisory Committe; Cathedrals Fabric Advisory Committee and English Heritage etc etc etc ... as Leicester has already discoverved to her considerable cost! (And then there's the cost of the tomb itself ... though I suppose the Plantagenet Alliance might pay for that!) Unfortunately the proponants of both sides of this arguement are still displaying a woeful lack of basic, background knowledge.[/p][/quote]I stand corrected. "Richard of Gloucester gave Battle in Vain?" ........ PhilR@Strike
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Thu 13 Mar 14

yorkone says...

guess what? he's dead ... doesn't give a flying fu**!! move on people,
guess what? he's dead ... doesn't give a flying fu**!! move on people, yorkone
  • Score: 1

7:55pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Seadog says...

Nothing from Chissy yet? Or has he/she changed his/her handle ... ?

Actually yorkone does have a point: Richard is indeed dead and awaits the Last Judgement as will we all. The precise location of our physical remains - whilst legitimately interesting for our friends, relatives and future historians - pales into insignificance before the ultimate destiny of our immortal souls. It doesn't much matter if one is resurrected from a car park or a cathedral in the great scheme of things!
Nothing from Chissy yet? Or has he/she changed his/her handle ... ? Actually yorkone does have a point: Richard is indeed dead and awaits the Last Judgement as will we all. The precise location of our physical remains - whilst legitimately interesting for our friends, relatives and future historians - pales into insignificance before the ultimate destiny of our immortal souls. It doesn't much matter if one is resurrected from a car park or a cathedral in the great scheme of things! Seadog
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Seadog wrote:
Nothing from Chissy yet? Or has he/she changed his/her handle ... ?

Actually yorkone does have a point: Richard is indeed dead and awaits the Last Judgement as will we all. The precise location of our physical remains - whilst legitimately interesting for our friends, relatives and future historians - pales into insignificance before the ultimate destiny of our immortal souls. It doesn't much matter if one is resurrected from a car park or a cathedral in the great scheme of things!
Nonsense. When you are dead you don't exist any more. Stop believing in an invisible man in the sky.
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: Nothing from Chissy yet? Or has he/she changed his/her handle ... ? Actually yorkone does have a point: Richard is indeed dead and awaits the Last Judgement as will we all. The precise location of our physical remains - whilst legitimately interesting for our friends, relatives and future historians - pales into insignificance before the ultimate destiny of our immortal souls. It doesn't much matter if one is resurrected from a car park or a cathedral in the great scheme of things![/p][/quote]Nonsense. When you are dead you don't exist any more. Stop believing in an invisible man in the sky. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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