Richard III

He should have been reburied near his wife. Unfortunately nobody is quite sure where in Westminster Abbey she is.

Wouldn't that sort of legitimize his claim? Where would that leave Her Maj?

Exactly where she is. He lost the battle; he had no heirs; Henry VII married a York (and the monarchs are no longer buried in Westminster Abbey anyway).

Whitewave I totally agree with you. He was Richard of YORK, not Leicester. They are really cashing in on their 'find'.
At least they've had the decency to include some white roses in Leicester Cathedral . As a native of Yorkshire now living in the Midlands (not Leicester) I shan't be watching on Thursday.

I thought the Cardinal's sermon was spot on.
A lot of this ceremony is a bit contrived though and aimed at boosting tourism no on doubt.

I'm really enjoying the TV coverage, learning a lot more than I'd expected to.
Laurence Oliver's portrayal sends shivers down my spine....

whitewave and trendygran I completely agree. I saw a bit of it this evening and was surprised by how emotional it made me feel and how sad that he will now lie forever close to the place where he died but where he had no association in life. Silly to feel that way after 500+ years maybe. I'm afraid the sight of the white roses only made me feel worse for him

I'd rather have heard more of the ceremony and less interviews

Starky is a horrible little man though- when he is on Question Time, he always gives me the creeps.

granjura I agree I always think he is slightly bonkers.

I too feel that he should be buried in York rather than Leicester, but I think they have been doing it very well so far. There have been a lot of complaints on Facebook about commercialism but I imagine there would have been a fair amount of that in York as well.

I don't see why he should be buried in York. He was not one of England's great monarchs, he snatched the throne and may have been responsible for the deaths of the princes in the tower. If he brings a bit of prosperity to Leicester via tourism at least he'll have finally done some good.

I think there would be a danger that he would have been 'lost' in all the other things that York has to offer and that Leicester will become known as the burial place of Richard III rather than York being Jorvik, the Railway Museum, the Minster, the town walls......and Richard III is buried there.

I am pleased it's happening for Leicester. It is my birth town.

Since the first news about the search for Richard llls remains I have been hooked on this story. I remember that my Leicester born aunts always talked about him with respect despite Shakespeare's best efforts.
He was respected in the city. King Richards Road was very near where I lived. In the two years as king he enacted a lot of good legislation which benefitted the commoners of Britain.

I'm sure Leicester is pleased to have him but I still feel he has no reason to be there. I'm not looking at it from the point of view of what Leicester will gain from having him, but from where he rightly belongs. That may be arguable but to me Leicester doesn't figure anywhere in the list of possible places. As the last king of the house of York I would have thought that was an obvious choice.

Are any other kings from the house of York buried there?

He's been in Leicester for over 500 years. That in it's self is enough reason for him to stay there.

Wolsey is buried in Leicester. At the site of Leicester Abbey I think.

The only other Yorkist kings are Edward IV, buried at Windsor, and Edward V, buried heaven knows where

No merlot. Although I have loyalties to Yorkshire my own personal preference for Richard's burial place as a former King of England would be Westminster Abbey. Failing that I simply feel that York is most appropriate, though I recognise there are other places he had strong links with. Leicester wasn't one of them.

But hey ho, that battle has been fought through the courts and lost. It just makes me sad, that's all. And that surprised me today.

There is a Richard III museum in York, in the city walls.

Just to muddy the waters, Richard III was the Duke of Gloucester before he became King, so maybe Gloucester has a claim to his body too and he also lived in Chelsea, so London also has a claim.

I reckon Sir James Tyrell had a lot of the responsibility for Richard III's infamous reputation but then the poor devil was tortured. It is quite remarkable how many people Henry VII managed to silence one way or another quite early on in his reign. Now, he really was a nasty piece of work with absolutely no claim to the throne other than "right of conquest".

My understanding is that there is no more room in Westminster Abbey for anyone else let alone a King

Don't malign poor Richard too much. He was a man of his times and he was trying to save the country from further civil war. England needed a strong king. A child could not have the strength and authority required to keep the nobles in order. History is written by the victors and the Tudors were very good at portraying their enemies as blackguards. Crookback Dick is an invention of Shakespeare. Richard's armour and the fact that he could fight so well show there couldn't be the hunch that we all think of him as having.

There is a lot of doubt regarding the death of the boys. Maybe Richard was involved but maybe he wasn't. It wasn't really necessary for him to kill them as he had them in the Tower. No one was going to declare for them when he had control of them as he could then have simply killed them.

Then, of course, there is the story that Edward was pre-contracted to Eleanor Butler. If that's true then the boys were illegitimate anyway and Richard was the rightful king.

Also imo the pantomime of his reburial is disrespectful to the dead man. People aren't turning out to pay their respects. They're turning out to watch the show. Re-enactments are a wonderful way of learning about our history but not the with remains of a human being in the middle of them.