Jimothy Posted 3 October 2013 Posted 3 October 2013 Thats because you are blinkered Ok, tell me one historical reason for York being the place he's reburied. Nothing to do with how pretty the places is, or spirituality of the city, or what Richard supposedly wanted.Just based on historical fact, why York? Or seemingly as you're so against Leicester, based purely on historical fact, why not Leicester?
Rincewind Posted 3 October 2013 Posted 3 October 2013 Gone up 3 in 10 minutes Number of signatures: 31,229 https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39708
RobHawk Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 31363. Leicester is now in the lead. Surely the numbers signing either poll is proof enough that not enough people in this country actually care! Leicester has more signatures so what basis does the PA campaign now have? For once, can common sense not prevail and save the taxpayer forking out for this review which now more than ever appears to be based on romantic fantasies and not facts, public opinion or anything else for that matter. Judge Hadden-Cave should be deeply ashamed and embarrassed, that his initial decision which was flawed and had no merit, has cost the tax payer in both monetary and resources value.
Jimothy Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Surely the numbers signing either poll is proof enough that not enough people in this country actually care! Leicester has more signatures so what basis does the PA campaign now have? For once, can common sense not prevail and save the taxpayer forking out for this review which now more than ever appears to be based on romantic fantasies and not facts, public opinion or anything else for that matter. Judge Hadden-Cave should be deeply ashamed and embarrassed, that his initial decision which was flawed and had no merit, has cost the tax payer in both monetary and resources value. You're right, that's exactly what the numbers show, but when the judge is using the amount of signatures the York petition got as reasoning for a review, it's nice to see Leicester surpass it. Surely now the judge should pull the review if he was using that as major factor. Like you've said its a complete waste of public money over a decision that doesn't need to be made, because the decision has already been made to bury him in Leicester.
Vlad the Fox Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Exactly. The e-petition was to try and force a discussion in parliament on the place of his burial. People supporting leicester didn't vote because he is being buried here, we didn't need to sign any petition to force any discussion which his why until cave made his daft decision the leicester vote was only about 7500. To use it as a measure of public opinion was lunacy, but seeing as he did it is now clear that more people believe he should be left in Leicester rather than moved to York and as such any review should now be stopped. Plus the fact he fought, died and was buried in Leicester is exactly the reason why he should stay here.
Rincewind Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 The blog that was set up said the fact that neither reached 10 quiet0,000 shows that the public don't care enough one way or the other. They care about NHS etc but this is not top priority. So as others have said the judge was wrong to accept the appeal on a few York signatures. Leicester would not have set one up if it was not for the judge. They probably knew they would get about the same number. Let's just hope the PA don't use the split decision as an argument. There is still a week or two to go so I think we could reach 35k. If the ones that decide have been following the progress they will see that the York support has been declining and arguments less feasible and stagnant. Leicester have been relatively quiet with just facts.
Spudulike Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 I have been thinking for quite some time how many that signed the York e-petition would do so again if asked now given the true historical facts have become widely known. However, they started another e-petition on the 26th Sept and, despite promoting it all over the internet, have so far attracted a grand total of ...... 364 signatures !!! I think that's answered my question. They have been sussed by the public, big time.
Bryn Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 I still can't believe this is a thing, it's so ****ing funny
Mr.X Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 This is all great publicity for Leicester, and when we WIN the case, we will be declared the victors of the battle with York
I am Rod Hull Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Ok, tell me one historical reason for York being the place he's reburied. Nothing to do with how pretty the places is, or spirituality of the city, or what Richard supposedly wanted.Just based on historical fact, why York? Or seemingly as you're so against Leicester, based purely on historical fact, why not Leicester? Give me a reason other than "finders keepers" for him to be buried in Leicester?, the only thing you have is that he died nearby and was smuggled there, against his wishes How about burying him next to his Queen (Anne Neville) in Westminster? or does that not float your boat? Its like the fookin Xfactor on this thread.... "I is voting for Leicester because I is from there"
lcfc81 Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Give me a reason other than "finders keepers" for him to be buried in Leicester?, the only thing you have is that he died nearby and was smuggled there, against his wishes How about burying him next to his Queen (Anne Neville) in Westminster? or does that not float your boat? Its like the fookin Xfactor on this thread.... "I is voting for Leicester because I is from there" Henry Tudor king of England wanted him burried in leicester an paid for a monument to him.He married Richards cousin(?) who by default and through marriage thus gave her consent for him to be burried here. Leicester monks claimed the body for burial after the battle in a very turbulent time and at great risk of upsetting the new king, no one else did. It is archaeological practice to bury in the closest consecrated ground. A legal license says he should. Leicester is historically significant as the the end of the plantagenate dynasty and start of the Tudor dynasty. Richard choose leicester for the battle (for the second time?) and would fully expect to be buried where any victor wanted him to if he lost (as was common in medieval warfare at the time).
lcfc81 Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Also who deserves the moral responsibility to change history to suit there own inferences? I would suggest no one.
I am Rod Hull Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Also who deserves the moral responsibility to change history to suit there own inferences? I would suggest no one. Morality? if you`re in to that then bury him next to his Queen
lcfc81 Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 Morality? if you`re in to that then bury him next to his Queen I agree, the problem is the only thing known for certain is that henry Tudor king of England wanted him buried in leicester. Everything else is just inference. (Oh and Westminster abbey is full and no one has been buried there for a long time)
Rincewind Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 They have started another petition? Bit unfair. As Leicester City fans would chant JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE LOSING
I am Rod Hull Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 I agree, the problem is the only thing known for certain is that henry Tudor king of England wanted him buried in leicester. Everything else is just inference. (Oh and Westminster abbey is full and no one has been buried there for a long time) I`d like to think that if I was killed in a fight my killer would not have a say in where I was buried ...and no Monarch has ever been buried in Leicester Cathedral.
lcfc81 Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 I`d like to think that if I was killed in a fight my killer would not have a say in where I was buried ...and no Monarch has ever been buried in Leicester Cathedral. To be fair your 'killer' wouldn't be a king (orA medieval (just about) one at that!) I do however agree with the London argument, if anything were to be infered it would suggest London. If there was a campaign for London I think I'd have to agree. The thing that frustrates me is that the York argument appear to have no substance and when I try to enter genuine discussion with anyone arguing for York their arguments turn into unsubstantiated drivel. There appears to be no argument.
Spudulike Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 I`d like to think that if I was killed in a fight my killer would not have a say in where I was buried ...and no Monarch has ever been buried in Leicester Cathedral. ... and which monarch's have been buried in York Minster ??
I am Rod Hull Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 To be fair your 'killer' would be a king (or A medieval (just about) one at that!) I do however agree with the London argument, if anything were to be infered it would suggest London. If there was a campaign for London I think I'd have to agree. The thing that frustrates me is that the York argument has no substance and when I try to enter genuine discussion with anyone arguing for York it turns into unsubstantiated drivel. There appears to be no argument. I think those for York, Leicester and Westminster should fight it out on Bosworth Field, winner takes the bones home ...Watch out for that Westminster lot... they`ll wait on the sidelines and join in when its nearly over
I am Rod Hull Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 ... and which monarch's have been buried in York Minster ?? I`v defected, I now fly the Westminster banner I am Bill Stanley
Trav Le Bleu Posted 4 October 2013 Posted 4 October 2013 IARH and Facecloth should be invited on to Question Time!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.