Richard III & the Car Park

[Errata]

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.

Home is where the heart is, so while Leicester has certainly hosted the body for a good long while he has no family there, no history from his own lifetime. I think that the two people foremost in his life were probably Anne and Edward, so burial with either of them seems most appropriate.

[Errata]

Didn't they bury the "two Princes" they found in the 1600s in Westminster? Dumped in an urn or some such? Was there any attendant difficulty with them?

[RivkahChaya]

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.

Does any abbey have a priest, bishop, vicar, or whatever? I'm familiar with the terms mostly as the Episcopal church uses them, because back when I was a sign language interpreter, I did a lot of work for the Episcopal church-- in the US, the Anglican church, in the for of the Episcopal church, has a very strong Deaf presence, because the son of the man who founded Gallaudet University was an Episcopal priest. At any rate, an abbey would have an abbot, which since Westminster isn't a working abbey, in the sense of having a large monastic group in residence, then I would think it would fall under the authority of the Queen, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, if no one is specially appointed to make decisions for it.

In regard to Richard's religion, I just always got the feeling that the assumption was that all the Catholic monarchs before Henry VIII were sort of given special status as honorary Anglicans, with the exception of Mary, since she is the only one who actually rejected the Church of England.
Phil H[/QUOTE]

Didn't they bury the "two Princes" they found in the 1600s in Westminster? Dumped in an urn or some such? Was there any attendant difficulty with them?

I don't think there was, but it was a different time. It's remotely possible that world Catholics will make an issue of this, which wouldn't have happened in the 17th century. I doubt it. I really don't think Catholics in France and Spain are going to care much. The only people who really might care are Roman Catholics who are British citizens.

If something like this happened in the US-- say, a body was found that might or might not be some famous person who was Catholic, and there was no family to assume the burial, I think there would be a big stink what sort of funeral, and it would drown more important news for a long time.

Anyway, I'm curious how much tourist fodder the government tries to get out of this. This is something with commercial potential, I'm sure. Richard III's funeral is something that, if televised, people in other countries would watch, and not just because it's the royals. If something like this happened in the US, I'm sure we'd be milking it for all we could. Richard should be glad he missed the chance the be American.

[Phil H]

I've been reflecting on the implications of what would happen in the event that the bones do not turn out to be Richard's - maybe on DNA grounds.

It occurs to me that, in that case there would be a HUGE lesson for Casebook posters in relation to coincidence. That in the exact place where the diggers had expected to find a king's body, and indeed that of a man long reputed to have had some physical deformity and been killed in battle- they find a skeleton with physical deformity and battle wounds, but it is not Richard's!! It would surely tell us how dangerous it is to assume that because such and such is, so and so MUST BE.

Of course, if the body IS shown to be the king's (beyond any reasonable doubt) then the value of soundly based research will have been amply demonstrated.

By the way, Westminster Abbey - the nomenclature is traditional - has a Dean and Chapter like a cathedral, but no bishop (a cathedral is where a bishop has his throne or "cathedra"). That is because the Abbey like St George's Chapel Windsor; and The Chapel Royals of the Savoy and St James' all come under the direct authority of The Queen - Supreme Governor of the Church of England - not the Archhishop of Canterbury.

Phil H

[Sally]

There's a lovely fig tree in the Archbishop's garden. I believe it was planted by Cardinal Wolsey.

[Phil H]

There's a lovely fig tree in the Archbishop's garden. I believe it was planted by Cardinal Wolsey.

At lambeth, Canterbury or york, Sally?

Wolsey was Archbishop of York, but never of Canterbury. He would like to have been, but the incumbent (Warham I think - there is a painting by Holbein) outlived him.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

I've been reflecting on the implications of what would happen in the event that the bones do not turn out to be Richard's - maybe on DNA grounds.

It occurs to me that, in that case there would be a HUGE lesson for Casebook posters in relation to coincidence.

Hmmm. Didn't someone else say something about how you can't use the back curvature to prove it's Richard, then turn around and use the fact that it's Richard to prove he had a back deformity?

Maybe I imagined it.

It's more than just a lesson in coincidence, it's a lesson on predicating one assumption on another. Also, a lesson on the appeal to ignorance-- that something must be so, simply because of lack of evidence to the contrary; for example, believing that JTR wrote the GSG just because we lack proof that someone else wrote it. (Which is not to say that can't be other reasons for believing so, but having no evidence someone else wrote it, and nothing else, is not a good reason.)

ETA: if that wasn't clear, good point, Phil. I was using it as a jumping board, not trying to correct it.

[Errata]

I hope it's not Richard. I hope it's a Native American Shaman. Cause THAT would be remarkable.

[Sally]

There's a lovely fig tree in the Archbishop's garden. I believe it was planted by Cardinal Wolsey.

At lambeth, Canterbury or york, Sally?

Wolsey was Archbishop of York, but never of Canterbury. He would like to have been, but the incumbent (Warham I think - there is a painting by Holbein) outlived him.

Phil H

At Lambeth Phil. Huge thing. Its a White Fig tree given to him as a gift. I forget by whom.

[Steve S]

If the DNA is non-human,we've got BIG problems.........

[Phil H]

David Icke has long believed that the royal family are aliens (remember the TV series "V" from the 80s)?

So he would no doubt be very interested.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

Reburial

As Richard raised his flag in Leicester, and fought a battle nearby, he presumably anticipated the possibility that he might be killed, and that such an eventuality would probably result in local burial. I would be in favour of the remains being interred within the local area - regardless of whether or not they are those of Richard III.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Hi Monty

First do let me apologise for the delay in replying...I wasn't around at all yesterday and only briefly the day before....

Clearly it's escaped your attention that my own introductory comments were also somewhat tongue in cheek...and I did in fact say that I felt it appropriate he should be reinterred in Leicester, which I certainly wouldn't have suggested at all had I felt that city had been disrespectful towards Richard...something which I neither said nor seriously implied.

As regards my doubts regarding the propriety or otherwise of a full state funeral, there is certainly no precedent for one being granted in the case of the reinterment of historic remains. I certainly believe they'd be respectfully treated with decent ceremony, but I rather doubt the full state panoply of parades through the streets of London, royal salutes, 21 gun salutes etc...however, I may be wrong...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Dave

You are quite right, there will be no "state funeral" if by that is meant what was given either HM The Queen Mother (semi-state in fact), or Winston Churchill.

Wherever the re-interment takes place it will be solemn, reverent, respectful and attended (assuming the DNA results are positive) by someone royal (HRH the Duke of Gloucester, I expect) and other local dignitaries, but otherwise low key.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Dave

You are quite right, there will be no "state funeral" if by that is meant what was given either HM The Queen Mother (semi-state in fact), or Winston Churchill.

Wherever the re-interment takes place it will be solemn, reverent, respectful and attended (assuming the DNA results are positive) by someone royal (HRH the Duke of Gloucester, I expect) and other local dignitaries, but otherwise low key.

Phil H

Oh. So, is the assumption that he has some sort of funeral before, and wasn't just dumped where he is? I suppose if the Abbey is there, of course there was, even though it may have been clandestine, but I guess he got his Catholic burial, and his last rites (they do those after you are dead if they don't make it to you alive, right?) It's my understanding you only need all that once, and that's the purpose, or theology, or whatever, or it being a sacrament. You don't have to keep getting rebaptized, re-ordained, or remarried to the same person. Once takes care of it for all time. A re-interment, even in a new place (as opposed to reburial in the same place after a forensic exhumation), isn't the same thing as a funeral.

Still, the UK can expect some tourists. I don't know how many people from the US would go to England just for this, but I think that a lot of people in the next year or two who were going anyway, will try to see the new grave. And Americans going to France or Italy, flying through Heathrow might make a stopover to see it. For Americans who know enough to want to travel to Europe in the first place, Richard III is a British monarch they've heard of, because of Shakespeare's play, and because of Tey's novel, and because of several movies that used to come on late-night that most people old enough to remember before the cable explosion. Also, American girls have heard of it, because Americans girls still read Ballet Shoes, by Noel Streatfeild. It has never been out of print in the US, and about 7 years ago, Emma Watson (Harry Potter's Hermione) starred in a film version, so popularity of the book even picked up a little. (The women don't have to read this next part, it's just for the men, who haven't read Ballet Shoes.) There's a whole couple of chapters where two of the main characters are in a production of Shakespeare's Richard III-- Emma Watson's character plays the older prince (it's actually pretty common to have a older teenaged girl play the role these days, since she can work longer hours than a real 12-year-old boy, and won't have a sudden growth spurt a week after the play opens).

Seriously, if you ask Americans to name British monarchs, you get a list like this:

King Arthur
Something the Conquerer
John, that was the one with Robin Hood, right?
No Richard. But that wasn't the same Richard who killed his nephews.
Richard III. Killed his nephews.
Henry VI, the one who had 8 wives-- no, wait (sings: I'm Enery the 8th) yeah-- Henry VIII
Elizabeth, the >snicker< virgin
Ummm, Mary Queen of Scots? No, that's not right.
There was a Queen Anne
Umm, King Lear?
George III
Victoria
Albert
The one who was Elizabeth's father
Elizabeth.

If you think that's embarrassing, try asking an American to name a president from before they (the American, that is, not the president) were born. They know Kennedy, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman, if they have seen the TV show M*A*S*H. A few can name Jefferson, if they bother to look at their 5 cent pieces. Some people think Benjamin Franklin was a president.

Freaking vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin didn't know the difference between John Adams, and John Quincy Adams. Sheesh. John Adams is the one who looks like a Care Bear. John Quincy Adams looks like he ate puppies for a light snack. No one knows who Cornwallis was.