Richard III & the Car Park

[jason_c]

Its only a personal opinion but I hope its Westminster Abbey. It would be a fitting resting place for a King of England. No matter what anyone's opinion of him is he deserve's a rightful burial as King. Pomp and circumstance is what we do best.

[Phil H]

I predict a solemn, respectful but low key reburial, wherever - still probably Leicester in my view. With HRH The Duke of Gloucester as royal representative. He bears Richard's former ducal title, and is president of the Richard III Society.

Phil H

[Phil H]

Archaic - thanks for the link.

I see from the comments that the old die-hards are still around. Like JtR dear Richard can still stir strong emotions.

Phil H

[Cogidubnus]

Personally I'd go for a fairly low-key interment in Leicester...I don't subscribe to the view expressed by one poster here that Leicester has exactly nurtured and treasured him (having demolished his resting place and buried it beneath an anonymous car-park!) but to be fair it seems appropriate...he fought and died in that neck of the woods after all...

Others have commented upon the constitutional difficulties of an RC being interred by an Anglican state...but what of the constitutional difficulties implied by a Plantagenet being interred in solemn state under the aegis of a Windsor monarchy?

The only other place I can see as appropriate might be York who properly appreciated him..."This day was our good King Richard piteously slain and murdered; to the great heaviness of this city"...but why shift the poor soul further than is avoidable after all these years?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Well, in fairness, he wasn't Catholic the way Mary was Catholic, which is to say, in spite of the Anglican church. True, it existed because of the son of the man who killed him, but it strikes me that England went so happily and easily away from the RC church as soon as Henry VIII gave them a chance, that he basically just sanctioned a sentiment which was already there.

Does anyone wonder what a king like Richard would have made of the actions of Martin Luther, and a populist revolution in the church?

I don't have a horse in this race, so I don't know about the possibility, the logistics, or what have you, of whoever the topmost Catholic Bishop (or whatever) in England being allowed to conduct a funeral in an Anglican edifice, I guess the Pope, the Queen, and the Archbishop of Canterbury would have to agree on it. I think that it would hardly set a precedent, though.

Here's a question: when someone who is baptized as a Roman Catholic, say, a native of France or Italy, moves to Britain, and wants to join the Anglican Church, is it necessary to be re-baptized? I'm just thinking that Richard III qualifies for an Anglican funeral, in the way a pagan king wouldn't, if anyone ever dug one up-- you know, one we knew hadn't been baptized. Yes, I realize we don't have those records. It's a hypothetical.

Like I said, I don't have a horse in the race. It is an interesting question. I guess because we don't have a state religion here, we don't make such fusses about things. A rabbi led my father's graveside services, but the indoor sort of less formal bit, with the eulogy, was done by an Episcopal priest, who delivered the eulogy, because he happened to be a colleague and close friend of my father's. He didn't wear his clerical collar, though.

I'm betting it will be a closed casket ceremony.

[Errata]

Yeah. I remember that. Apparently it's an obscure term for a weather phenomenon, that gets referenced in, of all things, an X-files episode. It's a fake ballad Welty wrote, at a time when a lot of authors were starting books with snippets of real ballads, because there was a fad for writing books that were based on myths and fairy tales. The Robber Bridegroom is based on a fairy tale, but it also parodies the form, something teachers don't usually bother to mention to high school students, for whom the parody doesn't "play" anyway, if they haven't read any straight examples of that kind of book. The flying cow doesn't moo. It's a joke.

Actually its a real weather phenomenon. It's very rare, but tornadoes do occasionally pick up the odd herd animal.

The reference in The Robber Bridegroom was intended literally, to reinforce the idea that despite familiar settings, it was a fairy tale. And I know this because she had a nasty habit of sneaking into lectures on her work and shouting down people who interpret her books incorrectly. And insulting them. I had the rare privilege of watching her call my professor "At best an illiterate clod, at worst a blowhard with no imagination." My professor had this odd notion that the flying cow was some sort of metaphor for the slightly pagan ,casual Christianity in the rural South. Clearly he was wrong.

Which is why you didn't talk about Eudora Welty within driving distance of Eudora Welty. She was awesome.

[Errata]

Here's an interesting article that addresses some questions I've been wondering about should the body prove to be Richard III-

not only where he ought to to be reburied, but how a funeral ceremony for a Catholic King of England might be handled by the Anglican powers that be.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/09/richard-iii-a-ceremony-fit-for-a-king/

Best regards,
Archaic

I'm not entirely sure why it's an issue. Granted, it's Anglican now, but Westminster certainly was originally Catholic, and Catholic sanctified ground. If he had just died, he would be buried in sanctified ground with the religious ceremony of his choice performed over him. I can't imagine he would be offended by resting in holy ground where they practice a religion that hadn't even been invented yet when he lived, and is so similar anyway. I mean, you guys have Catholic priests right? Is there a reason you can't just bring one into Westminster for this one task?

[RivkahChaya]

Actually its a real weather phenomenon. It's very rare, but tornadoes do occasionally pick up the odd herd animal.

But you wouldn't be able to hear one moo. Tornados are really, really loud. I know this, because I've lived in Indiana long enough to be within earshot of them, but still, I've never seen one, at least in real life. Far be it from me to correct Eudora Welty, if she was like that, but I still think there was a joke in there. And maybe "flying cow" as a weather term comes from the book, but it's something people say in the south now. I haven't checked that out. And I'm not about to. I have been eating bean tacos, toffee, and watching SVU on the DVR since I got home from YK services.

I'm not entirely sure why it's an issue.

That's because we're Americans, not to mention Jewish. I mean, maybe it isn't going to be an issue, but in England, the whole Catholic/Anglican royalty thing has a lot of baggage.

Have you ever tried to explain to someone from from another country why laws vary from state to state in the US? Sometimes people from other countries have trouble wrapping their brains around that, and this may just be "a British thing; we wouldn't understand."

[Phil H]

I think the funeral issues are misunderstood. No doubt there have been exceptions, but Richard's wife Anne, and his neice by marriage, Anne Mowbray were both reburied in the Abbey without difficulty.

Indeed, medieval bodies (all of "catholics" found on digs are reburied regularly without any fuss. After all, the modern Church of England considers itself "catholic" and as the inheritor and successor in a continuum of the former church that owed allegiance to the Pope.

Some decades ago, Cromwell's alleged skull (itself belonging to a controversial man) was re-buried - I think in his old Cambridge college and he was a Puritan - so what service did they use?

While the present royal family may take a passing interest in the alleged bones of Richard, I don't think they will have much in the way of a view apart from wanting the remains treated with dignity. They wil go along with the advice offered them though the decision will not I think be directly the Queen's. She might have to give approval personally for an internment in the Abbey - which as a "royal peculiar" has no bishop or archbishop over it, and looks directly to HM The Queen for authority. (The same would apply with St George's Chapel.)

Another thought, related, unless the bones can be shown to be Richard's beyond any cavil, then I suspect that the Abbey would be reluctant to get involved.

I think that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries. They did not chose to dissolve the monasteries which is where the problems began. Individuals, for the most part, appear to have treated the grave site with some respect.

A main consideration in an eventual decision may well be "commercial" as I suspect the site will become something of a (albeit minor) tourist draw - more so that the cenotaph currently representing Richard's grave in the cathedral. There might be money in it, in a small way, for town and cathedral.

Phil H

[jason_c]

I think the funeral issues are misunderstood. No doubt there have been exceptions, but Richard's wife Anne, and his neice by marriage, Anne Mowbray were both reburied in the Abbey without difficulty.

Indeed, medieval bodies (all of "catholics" found on digs are reburied regularly without any fuss. After all, the modern Church of England considers itself "catholic" and as the inheritor and successor in a continuum of the former church that owed allegiance to the Pope.

Some decades ago, Cromwell's alleged skull (itself belonging to a controversial man) was re-buried - I think in his old Cambridge college and he was a Puritan - so what service did they use?

While the present royal family may take a passing interest in the alleged bones of Richard, I don't think they will have much in the way of a view apart from wanting the remains treated with dignity. They wil go along with the advice offered them though the decision will not I think be directly the Queen's. She might have to give approval personally for an internment in the Abbey - which as a "royal peculiar" has no bishop or archbishop over it, and looks directly to HM The Queen for authority. (The same would apply with St George's Chapel.)

Another thought, related, unless the bones can be shown to be Richard's beyond any cavil, then I suspect that the Abbey would be reluctant to get involved.

I think that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries. They did not chose to dissolve the monasteries which is where the problems began. Individuals, for the most part, appear to have treated the grave site with some respect.

A main consideration in an eventual decision may well be "commercial" as I suspect the site will become something of a (albeit minor) tourist draw - more so that the cenotaph currently representing Richard's grave in the cathedral. There might be money in it, in a small way, for town and cathedral.

Phil H

I agree with what you say.

Any controversy in burial will be around how much dignity should we use when burying a King who has such a reputation, rather than a strict sectarian controversy. We usually marry and bury our Monarchs well. I suspect an understated(but respectful) ceremony to take place. Perhaps with minor royalty in attendance.

[Monty]

Personally I'd go for a fairly low-key interment in Leicester...I don't subscribe to the view expressed by one poster here that Leicester has exactly nurtured and treasured him (having demolished his resting place and buried it beneath an anonymous car-park!) but to be fair it seems appropriate...he fought and died in that neck of the woods after all...

Others have commented upon the constitutional difficulties of an RC being interred by an Anglican state...but what of the constitutional difficulties implied by a Plantagenet being interred in solemn state under the aegis of a Windsor monarchy?

The only other place I can see as appropriate might be York who properly appreciated him..."This day was our good King Richard piteously slain and murdered; to the great heaviness of this city"...but why shift the poor soul further than is avoidable after all these years?

All the best

Dave

Dave,

Everyone one knows you are referring to me, so just say so.

My comments were partly tongue in cheek, however I do stand by my comments that I see no other local authority stepping in with the funding and support.

Infact when the idea was first being bought to action the BBC treated it with some skepitcism, having two knights recreate a rather unrealistic battle as the reporter presented. No one thought for one moment that they would find something.

Then POW, a body is found which matches the historical accounts. All of a sudden everyone is interested and has an opinion.

Leicester has been a pro Ricardian City and still is. He is prominant around the city, and was the mustering point Richard chose himself.

I also think it unfair to claim the City demolished his memorial and built a car parking space as if it was a deliberate act.

Since Henry destroyed the Monasteries the place what bought up by Herrick. Who built properties there and preserved the memorial. However, time stands for no man and its human nature to develop ones enviroment. Especially in a period where the victor reigns. The world progresses, look at Stonehenge, look at various battlefields, even look within our own subject. You know where the victims are buried?

Whilst I feel strongly that Leicester is more that an apt location for his reburial (or whoever it is - we do not know who it is) I feel even stronger that the living decendants shoud have their say. As long as he is reinterred correctly, with respect and dignity, then the location is secondary.

However to state Leicester has been disrespectful is, quite frankly, offensive.

Monty

[Phil H]

I think that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries. They did not chose to dissolve the monasteries which is where the problems began. Individuals, for the most part, appear to have treated the grave site with some respect.

As this has become a slightly controversial issue, I just noticed (in catching up on recent posts) that I missed out a crucial couple of words in my previous post. I meant to say (as is clear when you read the whole paragraph):

I DO NOTthink that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries.

Sorry about that and for any inadvertent office i might have caused.

phil H

[Steve S]

Some decades ago, Cromwell's alleged skull (itself belonging to a controversial man) was re-buried - I think in his old Cambridge college and he was a Puritan - so what service did they use?


Phil H

Sydney Sussex.........AFAIK,to be "period accurate" for an Independent,there's no set-down service......

Steve

[Monty]

I think that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries. They did not chose to dissolve the monasteries which is where the problems began. Individuals, for the most part, appear to have treated the grave site with some respect.

As this has become a slightly controversial issue, I just noticed (in catching up on recent posts) that I missed out a crucial couple of words in my previous post. I meant to say (as is clear when you read the whole paragraph):

I DO NOTthink that Leicester, as a city, can be regarded as responsible for what has been done to Richard over the centuries.

Sorry about that and for any inadvertent office i might have caused.

phil H

Hey Phil,

Please note my post was addressed to Dave, not yourself. I had read the whole of your post and understood its context, no need to apologise.

I also read Daves and yes, I also noted the 'seems appropriate' comment.

I was just making clear my own comments. Apologies to Dave if my wording seems a little too strong (having re read it just now Id have to agree) however I felt he was being unfair in his views.

Monty

[Sally]

I don't think I've ever been to Leicester, but some of my ancestors were born there, so I should probably vote for it on that basis alone.

Seriously, its an interesting question. Where will Richard go (if Richard it is) for his final resting place?

I don't think everything (and everyone) should necessarily end up in London.