Guest MattP Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 I agree, however she is in Westminster abbey and it has been illegal to bury people there for a long time as it is full! Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 You're like the people who kept saying, he can't be buried in Leicester, he needs to be buried with dignity. With all due respect, **** off. Leicester might not be the greatest place on earth, but he laid here for 500 years, I see no reason he shouldn't for many more to come. Look at the future demographic of Leicester and then tell me its a good choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 My understanding is that the basis of the York arguments are, 1) he start to build a very large chancery (?) in York. This is a place where monks were paid to pray for the souls of the dead. Some people try to infer that means he wanted to be burried there ( so they could pray for his soul when he died). Unfortunately for this argument he built more than one chancery in different locations ( making this a bery weak inference), also months before he died his wife died and he arranged for her to be burried in Westminster (setting a clear and undeniable family president which much stronger inferences can be made from) 2) Richards 'family' want him burried in York, richard had no legitimate descendants, and there could be (according to the bbc) between 1 and 17 million descendants of richard. Michael Ibsen ( the only named and proved descendant wants him burried in leicester in preference (currently), the plantagenate alliance (15 people) are trying to speak on behalf of the other ( possible) 17 million. 3) leicester is a terrible place seems to be popular Ok great! So where else did he build chancery's? Did he live in York at all? I've seen reference to him visiting. Also what's this about his father being Richard of York as well? Did he inherit the title? The more I look into the more criminal it seems that the judge allowed this to go any further. Sorry for all the questions but I'm generally interested and am not a great history buff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Look at the future demographic of Leicester and then tell me its a good choice...Fair point. Not a single person here will know who is he in 250 years. You played the cab driver game yet? Get one at the station when you get back to Leicester and start asking the driver about Richard III. Ive done about 15 and not one has had a clue what I'm on about yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Fair enough. To be honest, I think this is big enough that they should make an exception. However if its not westminster (which it appears it won't) it had to be leicester imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Put him back under a car park but don't tell them which one.Then see if they are willing to cough up the dosh to find him in 500 years time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Look at the future demographic of Leicester and then tell me its a good choice... So you've gone from history buff telling everyone it should be York based on historical "facts" to comparing the merits of present days Leicester and York. Sorry, matters not what Leicester is like, or what you personally think of it or its people. It's where he was buried, as mentioned before its where the victor of the war chose for him to be buried. As an aside, and I should mention, the fact York jumped on this bandwagon when they realised it might make some money pisses me off, this could make Leicester some money, and that can only be a good thing. More tourism, a better local economy, better job prospects for local people. Part of Leicester problem for years is while it has a long history, it doesn't have a a rich history, it doesn't have a pull, a real reason for people to visit. This could be it, and that can only be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Put him back under a car park but don't tell them which one.Then see if they are willing to cough up the dosh to find him in 500 years time. He`s homeless, Ken.... Stop taking the piss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 One of the posts I saw from the PA was that Leicester only want him for the money and they want him cuz of some better reason they'll think of later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavrentis Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Why York or Leicester. This bickering over a dead body is awful. Bury him in London Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 So you've gone from history buff telling everyone it should be York based one historical "facts" to comparing the merits of present days Leicester and York. Sorry, matters not what Leicester is like, or what you personally think of it or its people. It's where he was buried, as mentioned before its where the victor of the war chose for him to be buried. As an aside, and I should mention, the fact York jumped on this bandwagon when they realised it might make some money pisses me off, this could make Leicester some money, and that can only be a good thing. More tourism, a better local economy, better job prospects for local people. Part of Leicester problem for years is while it has a long history, it doesn't have a a rich history, it doesn't have a pull, a real reason for people to visit. This could be it, and that can only be a good thing. I`d cant wait to buy a Richard III snow dome that was made in China from some Asian bloke on £2 an hour with no grasp of the English language in a little kiosk just outside Leicester Cathedral... Temper your passion with reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Chris Ramsbottom Pampling I've checked on Ancestry and I'm actually descended from his brother, George, Duke of Clarence - the one that was drowned in a butt of Malmesey in the Tower. Richard is my 15th great grand uncle. Richard's father was also called Richard, hence my confusion. 2 hours ago · Edited · Like Keith Spencer The only reason people from Leicester want to keep him, is so at last they can have some one famous in Leicester 37 minutes ago · Like Ken Lcfc Gary Lineker, Gordon Banks, Jon Merrick, The Atenborough brothers daniel Lambert Can you check on ancestry that far back. I would have thought if you are not some aristocrat it would be difficult. Even for the Royals it gets confusing with all the bastards illegitimate s and inbreeding in their time line. I'm going bed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 I`d cant wait to buy a Richard III snow dome that was made in China from some Asian bloke on £2 an hour with no grasp of the English language in a little kiosk just outside Leicester Cathedral... Temper your passion with reality Try picking your reasoning and sticking to it. One minute I'm discussing this with a history know it all and next it's a sociologist and UK city expert.The present day city and Asian blokes with snow domes should have no bearing on this decision, it's not a my city is nicer than yours contest, and all historical reasoning points to him being reburied in Leicester. Another thing. This project was never about moving him. It's been unknown for half a millennium where his remains were, one myth was he was tossed into the Soar. Another he was under Halford Street car park. This project was about finding that answer and finally knowing where he was buried. That's what it's done. Now he can't very well be put back under the car park, that has a function now and people might want to visit his grave, so the sensible thing is to move him to the nearest suitable ground, Leicester Cathedral. The project has achieved it's aim, we know its him, so all that's left is to near as damn it, put him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 21 August 2013 Share Posted 21 August 2013 Ok great! So where else did he build chancery's? Did he live in York at all? I've seen reference to him visiting. Also what's this about his father being Richard of York as well? Did he inherit the title? The more I look into the more criminal it seems that the judge allowed this to go any further. Sorry for all the questions but I'm generally interested and am not a great history buff! I'm no history buff but really got into this. I believe he built one (it might be chantry not chancery) at middleham and st Mary's barking. http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm I believe he grew up in Yorkshire, middleham castle, but don't know if he ever actually lived in York. I know he spent a fair amount of time in nottingham castle during his reign. He was known as the king of the north as he spent a lot of time there and a lot of his allies were there, ( he seemed to be disliked by southern nobles more). I know relatively little about his fathers role, however richard iii was the duke of Gloucester ( not York). Richard also had a brother who was king (Edward iv) who is burried in London and doesn't seem to have been known as Edward of York. Sorry about the delay have been looking for a chantry reference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 Leicester was his final resting place before he was dug up so let decomposed kings lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I'm getting quite into this - I've been asking the York campaign why they think he should go to York - They only answer i'm really getting so far was that he had land there and spent alot of time their! Doesn't seem that much of a strong argument but i'll see what else comes about. Interesting that his Father - Who was Richard - Duke of York - Is buried in Northamptonshire! they will be wanting him exhumed and repatriated to York at this rate! (Although he was never king so nowhere near as important as his son!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I'm getting quite into this - I've been asking the York campaign why they think he should go to York - They only answer i'm really getting so far was that he had land there and spent alot of time their! Doesn't seem that much of a strong argument but i'll see what else comes about. Interesting that his Father - Who was Richard - Duke of York - Is buried in Northamptonshire! they will be wanting him exhumed and repatriated to York at this rate! (Although he was never king so nowhere near as important as his son!) That is very interesting about his father. I didn't know that. To be fair to the people who argue for York, they are very passionate and its nice that people want to be associated to him. Its just I feel personally the arguments for York are very weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 That is very interesting about his father. I didn't know that. To be fair to the people who argue for York, they are very passionate and its nice that people want to be associated to him. Its just I feel personally the arguments for York are very weak. They don't seem to have much substance - alot of what is being said appears to be completely unfounded. I've asked the Plantagenet Alliance the reasons why he should be moved to York and i seem to be getting alot of smoke and mirrors rather than answers! What i find said is that in this day an age people hear something or read it on Twitter and take it as gospel. It happens every year on this forum and many others across the country during the transfer window. But it seems to be spreading to include our history as well. I'm no historian but i have done a little research and proved some things i've read are completely unfounded (you made a huge input there as well) but people just believe anything these days! We may well be re writing the history books without even realizing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I've heard that he was a bit bent anyway . Send him him back !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I've heard that he was a bit bent anyway . Send him him back !! I had a hunch about that but I didn't think he could stoop so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudulike Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I'm getting quite into this - I've been asking the York campaign why they think he should go to York - They only answer i'm really getting so far was that he had land there and spent alot of time their! Doesn't seem that much of a strong argument but i'll see what else comes about. Interesting that his Father - Who was Richard - Duke of York - Is buried in Northamptonshire! they will be wanting him exhumed and repatriated to York at this rate! (Although he was never king so nowhere near as important as his son!) People new to the War of the Roses are getting very confused about 'York'. Richard, Duke of Gloucester and later Richard III, was of the 'House of York', a wing to the Plantagenet dynasty. The 'House of Lancaster' being the other. 'York' and 'Lancaster' are merely titles and not meaning from those places. Pretty much that nowadays we have Andrew, Duke of York, Edward, Earl of Wessex, William, Duke of Cambridge etc etc. 'York' and 'House of York' are very different things. The War of the Roses were very complex and sometimes referred to as the 'Cousins War' which is probably more accurate. To confuse matters, House of York supporters largely came from the south of England and the City of York was a Lancastrian stronghold. Richard III's father (Richard of York) and 17 year-old brother, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, had their heads mounted on spikes on the city walls of York after the battle of Wakefield. Not much loyalty from the locals at that time. Anyway, here's another opinion about his burial place ... http://extremehousewife.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/why-richard-iii-should-be-buried-in.html?m=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudulike Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I agree, however she is in Westminster abbey and it has been illegal to bury people there for a long time as it is full! No one actually knows whereabouts Ann Neville is buried in the Abbey. Her tomb is unmarked and long forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudulike Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 Chris Ramsbottom Pampling I've checked on Ancestry and I'm actually descended from his brother, George, Duke of Clarence - the one that was drowned in a butt of Malmesey in the Tower. Richard is my 15th great grand uncle. Richard's father was also called Richard, hence my confusion. Ken you can tell Chris Ramsbottom Pampling that he's in good company. It's been estimated there are up to 17 million people worldwide 'related' to Richard III. Pretty good chance that you also have the same (very) distant relative. Time to research our ancestry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 I omly have to kill off 17 million people then.for the House of Duddle to rule England I have given Richard and the petition a plug on the radio. Might not reach too many but I said the York mob had a weak case and urged listeners to pass the message on through their Facebook and twitter pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 22 August 2013 Share Posted 22 August 2013 They don't seem to have much substance - alot of what is being said appears to be completely unfounded. I've asked the Plantagenet Alliance the reasons why he should be moved to York and i seem to be getting alot of smoke and mirrors rather than answers! What i find said is that in this day an age people hear something or read it on Twitter and take it as gospel. It happens every year on this forum and many others across the country during the transfer window. But it seems to be spreading to include our history as well. I'm no historian but i have done a little research and proved some things i've read are completely unfounded (you made a huge input there as well) but people just believe anything these days! We may well be re writing the history books without even realizing it! I like you have really got into researching this. It is amazing what people will say to prove they are itk or correct. You're right about twitter etc, its such a shame peoe don't seem to be as questioning anymore. However it is great that there are people like you who try to challenge things a bit more. Keep up the good research. For me one of the things I found out researching made me realise what at rich history leicester has from that time, e.g henry vi being knighted in leicester (I believe he had big connections before becoming king) Simon de Montfort, cardinal walsey (spelling?), richard iii, the whe lady Jayne grey story etc. all in all it has made me determined to do the little I can to help preserve that history, richard iii is a central part of our history, we are very fond of him, and we need to start showing people that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.