Richard III & the Car Park

[Beowulf]

It's not that I hate the proposed tomb, but somehow the lack of an effigy seems... sad maybe? It looks incomplete without it.

I had the same immediate reaction, but then I thought...

Any effigy would have to be subjective, a modern inter0pretation - and what would the face be based on? The older portraits or the recent bust?

Phil

I feel the same. A great King like that and with such a spectacular addition to his historical record, the unbelievable finding of his body years later.

Seems too understated a tomb for him but it is very dignified and tastefully done.

For effigies must be expensive. Someone has to do it and it's an added expense. But there are many an effigy that are so simple a sculpt that I think they could get away with it.

Look at the Waldgrave tomb in Borley Rectory Church, nothing fantastic but still a nice visual honor.

[RivkahChaya]

Both Archaeology and Ethics have always fascinated me, so I thought this topic was interesting: When is it alright to display human remains?

- When they are "sufficiently old enough"? (Of course very subjective.)

- When they are of "historic interest"?

- Should "royal" remains not be displayed for some reason?

- Are they in some way different from other human remains?

I'm not going to try to argue that royals are in any way different, but they spent their lives in the public eye, and maybe deserve to be out of it, finally, in death.

Or, to put another spin on it: displaying known people, with known histories, whether they are Richard, John Wilkes Booth, or anyone we freely gossip and form legend around, that's not really fair.

On the other hand, displaying people anonymously is a little different. There's a soap mummy in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, but no one knows anything about the person the mummy originally was. No one can make karma jokes, if he had bad BO in life, because no one knows that. He may have been a soap maker in real life, although I doubt it, so no one can misuse the word "irony" on a daily basis.

There's also a collection of skulls, and some of them were probably gained under questionable circumstances, but some of them have provenance, and were from people who "gave their bodies to science," for anatomy classes, and then for skeletal display. I have a friend who has done this. She has survived cancer, and has unrelated respiratory problems, so, in her words, no one wants her organs fro transplant. She's not religious, and she doesn't want the family she rarely sees to spend money on a funeral for her.

So she left her body to a med school for anatomy class, and said that they can use her remains as teaching tools "in perpetuity," and she hopes she gets to be one of those skeletons hanging in a classroom, and people put funny hats on her at Halloween, or a football jersey the weekend of the home game.

Royals being royals probably get some say in their arrangements, and don't often get lost, like Richard did. People say he was level-headed and prudent, so maybe he doesn't mind a short display, and maybe some casts of his bones made for a museum, in exchange for not having cars parked on him anymore.

[Phil H]

The debate has raged for decades in Egypt about whether the mummies of the famous pharaohs should be displayed in Cairo Museum. In the 80s they were withdrawn for a time.

The question is dignity and I don't think there are any more inhibitions about royal remains than others frankly.

Historically, experts and academics, need to see the remains 0- at least detailed photographs in the publication of the discovery. How else can "peer review" take place? In the case of Richard, only if detailed photographs of skull, spine etc are made available can anyone determine whether the "official" analysis and interpretation/reconstruction has been done correctly.

If detailed photographs are available, why not show the actual remains - is there a "moral" difference between the two? Is one more intrusive than the other?

If academics and scientists can see and study the remains, why not more amateur students - historians, writers, novelists. As someone who has been working on a life of RIII and his family for decades, I'd certainly like to see the head wounds so that I can be sure any account of his death I might write is accurate. Why should some people see the bones and not others?

Should scientists and professional historians be allowed access, but not those who are "uncredited"? Should paid up members of the RIII Society see them, but not the rest of us?

I think a "lying in state" can be handled sensitively and with dignity. More than merely my personal interest (as discussed above) I would like to pay my respects to a man whom (based on what I have read about his life) I honour and admire.

The remains have been seen by some - we are not talking about exhuming an intact burial in the Abbey or at St George's simply to "gawp". The remains have been found, rescued even, from an undignified place and will be honourably re-interred. People have necessarily seen the skeleton - so I believe that that ability should be extended to all those who wish to make the effort.

Some will simply have a curiousity, no doubt - and there is no way of separating those out from the deeply interested and sincere. But then, there wasn't when the Queen Mother lay in state in 2002.

So I will argue - perhaps a little selfishly and with self-interest in mind - for a public exposition of the bones.

Happy to discuss further if anyone disagrees.

Phil

P.S. On a separate point:

Look at the Waldgrave tomb in Borley Rectory Church, nothing fantastic but still a nice visual honor.

Is Borley and its infamous rectory an interest of your's as well, Beowulf? If so maybe we should start a thread.

[Errata]

I feel the same. A great King like that and with such a spectacular addition to his historical record, the unbelievable finding of his body years later.

Seems too understated a tomb for him but it is very dignified and tastefully done.

For effigies must be expensive. Someone has to do it and it's an added expense. But there are many an effigy that are so simple a sculpt that I think they could get away with it.

Look at the Waldgrave tomb in Borley Rectory Church, nothing fantastic but still a nice visual honor.

I think an effigy done in the style of the 15th century that went by the portrait and one that went by the anthropological reconstruction would not look too terribly different. And I think it should be done in the style of his time. It's like righting a wrong.

[Phil H]

There are various sorts of memorial that would not be out of keeping with the C15th.

Monumental brasses were still used - if you haven't seen one, they are flat, engraved sheets of brass deeply etched with a representation of the deceased usually wearing their robes of office and/or amour. So Richard might be shown in armour with his Garter robes over it. There are various pen pictures of the King from around his lifetime - such as the Rous Roll which might even furnish a roughly contemporary image.

Bronze effigies were also used (Edward III died 1377; Richard II died 1399) both have them. Henry V (d 1422) had a silver effigy over a wood core - the hands and head have been replaced in modern times though in resin not precious metal. Most famously, of course, Richard's successor, Henry VII (died 1509), his neice, Elizabeth of York, and Henry's mother Lady Margaret Beaufort all have superb bronze effigies by Torrigiano. Edward the Black Prince (died 1376) also has a famous effigy in bronze.

Edward IV (died 1483) simply has his name and numeral on a stone slab set into a wall, and a fantastic set of gates/screen in wrought iron which are original. Henry VI has a simple slab although designs exist for an effigy.

Then, of course there is the carved alabaster figure, Henry IV has one.

I wonder whether modern approaches to sculpture might be somewhat uninspuired and leave Richard with a second rate work (compared say to Henry VII). It's value as a modern attempt would be of limited value historically, if not artistically.

As I think I noted in a previous post, the RIII Society does appear to have considered effigies when designing the memorial presently in place and discounted it. Whether that was on grounds of cost, artistic merit or taste, even the views of the Cathedral authorities, I do not know.

In a final aside on modern parallels, Victoria and Albert, Edward and Alexandra and George V and Mary all have 3D effigies. But George VI (the Queen's father) and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother have simple slabs - I think the King's has a roundel showing his profile portrait in relief.

Just some thoughts.

Phil

[Steve S]

P.S. On a separate point:

Look at the Waldgrave tomb in Borley Rectory Church, nothing fantastic but still a nice visual honor.

Is Borley and its infamous rectory an interest of your's as well, Beowulf? If so maybe we should start a thread.

Umm...It is of mine,actually...........

Steve

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

I wonder whether modern approaches to sculpture might be somewhat uninspuired and leave Richard with a second rate work

You're right of course...and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Surely it'd be totally out of context.

Then, of course there is the carved alabaster figure, Henry IV has one.

Yes but Richard was, of course, rather later...did his noble contemporaries have carved figures? For the most part I don't think so...

For my own part I'd prefer a dignified flat tomb as proposed by the Ricardians (with either an inscribed top, or an engraved brass) with a wrought iron surround to "protect" it...totally in keeping with Richard's contemporaries, but at the same time, ageless....

There are still any number of smiths producing wrought iron ornamentation for churches (if not entire rood screens!)...Years ago I came across a totally brilliant guy in Ruddington called Oliver Blood, and am lucky enough to possess an amazing twisted iron poker produced especially for me and the missus just after his formal retirement...he's on the internet...something like his work would be brilliant!

All the best

Dave

[Beowulf]

P.S. On a separate point:

Look at the Waldgrave tomb in Borley Rectory Church, nothing fantastic but still a nice visual honor.

Is Borley and its infamous rectory an interest of your's as well, Beowulf? If so maybe we should start a thread.

Oh, yes. I went through quite a 'Borley' phase, reading everything on it, as well as illustrating a book on Borley Rectory to be written by the son of Marianne, Vince O'Neill, who signed off the net.

I have a few books on it, collectors books. A column on it might be very interesting.

[Phil H]

I'll start a discussion thread on Borley later today. The convoluted and controversial story might interest even those who have never heard of the so-called "Most Haunted House in England" before.

Phil

[Phil H]

I have just returned from visiting the RIII Exhibition in the Guildhall at Leicester. I had to queue for 2 hours to get in (I miscalculated and it was school half-term in Leicester!) but it was worth it.

I'll post a full review and observations shortly.

In brief, the exhibition was good, though not huge - recordings of the experts talking briefly about the dig; an interactive display on the skeleton (but not with the actual bones of course) and a 3D representation of the skull. Some info about medieval Leicester and RIII's reputation.

The display boards were informative and there are nice pamphlets to buy.

I also had a look in the Cathedral - first time for over 10 years - and have some thoughts on any tomb put there.

More anon,

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

I have just returned from visiting the RIII Exhibition in the Guildhall at Leicester. I had to queue for 2 hours to get in (I miscalculated and it was school half-term in Leicester!) but it was worth it.

I'll post a full review and observations shortly.

In brief, the exhibition was good, though not huge - recordings of the experts talking briefly about the dig; an interactive display on the skeleton (but not with the actual bones of course) and a 3D representation of the skull. Some info about medieval Leicester and RIII's reputation.

The display boards were informative and there are nice pamphlets to buy.

I also had a look in the Cathedral - first time for over 10 years - and have some thoughts on any tomb put there.

More anon,

Phil

Hi Phil

If your post was "Anon", why did you sign it "Phil"?

Just kidding. Thanks for your interesting report. I'll look forward to reading a further report from you.

Cheers

Chris

[Monty]

Crap,

I missed you Phil. So sorry.

You were probably in the cue as I walked past. I noticed a fair few foriegn tourists around today.

By the way, did you note the family memorial in St Martins? The one to Mizen?

A tennuous link between Jack and Richard.

Monty

[Monty]

Right, before we start. York - do you want to have a crack at this or are you gonna let us do all the hard work before you try to muscle in?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21476014?post_id=1167703254_343464512426864#_=_

Monty

[Errata]

I think I can be okay with no effigy if there is an 15th century style stained glass window portraying him.

[Phil H]

Sorry I missed you Monty, I was the queue from 11.30ish and got into the exhibition about 1.15. Going was a spur of the moment decision, influenced by the fact that it was a nice day and another social engagement had fallen through.

I'll come back to the exhibition once i have brought my note book up to the PC.

I want now just to reflect on the proposed "tomb" in the cathedral.

Leicester Cathedral is quite broad but short - the nave is quite squat. The chancel/choir - where Richard's memeorial slab is - is quite confined.

The slab is flush with the floor and thus does not currently impede liturgical movements, processions etc. However, a raised tomb "chest" undoubtedly would, chanelling any procession either side of it in what would be quite narrow spaces.

Two possibilities occurred to me:

either (a) to put the body essentially under the present slab, but with a new inscription; or

(b) put a tomb in one of the quite spacious transpts/aisles that are at the moment pretty open.

(A) would put the remains in what is undoubtedly the place of honour in the building, but where a raised tomb would be a problem and an obstruction. (B) would be more practical but could be criticised for relegating a king to a secondary position.

These may be some of the considerations that influenced the Cathedral to say that while they were aware of the RIII Society proposal, no decision had yet been reached. Another consideration may be that, as a listed building (i.e one protected by law, special approvals are needed for a major monument.

Queuing outside the building today I saw a planning notice fastened to some railings relating to the moving of the pulpit. If special and specific permission is required for that, then it may be for a tomb. (Monty may tell me that the planning document relates to something else - I'm no expert.)

Oh, and a worker in the Cathedral told me something else. Want to know why York Minster was so insistent that Leicester have the King's remains? It turns out the current Dean (i.e head of) York Minster, was previously Bishop or Dean of Leicester!! So he may well have a fellow feeling for his former diocese.

I'll be back in a bit with detailed notes on the exhibition.

Phil (or anon).