Richard III

I see Whitewave- but if you watched the programme, the fact he was pre-Reformation (obviously) was totally acknowledged and acted upon, the ceremony being carried out by Catholics albeit in an Anglican Cathedral- nd very sensitively I thought.

I'll have to watch the programme on catch-up. The best account I've come across is the book by Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time. She also wrote a number of very good mysteries if anyone is looking for an author they don't know about.

No just sort of just put the idea out there as he would not recognize the Protestant element! Playing devil's advocate really

Hear here Marmardoit.

What do you mean Whitewave? He did have a Catholic ceremony. For me it was one of the striking features of the events yesterday, that the Catholic and Anglican Churches agreed to work together for the occasion. Here where I live, both Churches used to be at loggerheads when I was a child, and when my parents wanted to get married- all hell let lose! (dad was a staunch Catholic family a 10% minority here at the time) and mum from a Protestant one, divorced with 1 child. They had to get married at the so called 'Christian Catholic Church' which is more or less the equivalent of the Anglican Church. Nowadays, due to massive Italian, Spanish and Portuguese immigration since the war- it is about 50/50- and due to so many mixed marriages- they've just had to adapt to survive- not unusual for a Catholic Priest and a Protestant Vicar sharing a marriage or funeral ceremony- although the battle still rages about baptism!

So it was great to see them working together yesterday- as Richard was (clearly! before Henry VIII reformation) a Catholic, is was fitting he had a CAtholic ceremony imho.

It's a hell of a lot more respectful than what happened to his body after Bosworth.

What should they have done ?

Not bothered looking for him.
Chucked him back in the hole.
Left him in the cardboard box.
Maybe just buried him quietly without anyone knowing.

I can't see the problem with what is happening. They are even saying prayers for him 500 years after his death. So he is getting what he would have wished for.

I wouldn't turn out myself to file past anyone's coffin, but will visit Leicester later in the year. I understand that I will be able to entre St Martin's for free and view the tomb. I wouldn't have been able to do that in York or London.

I don't think it's almost a certainty. I'm a historian. The evidence available points to a variety of suspects. Don't forget it suited the Tudors to paint Richard as black as possible.

All this ceremony for someone who was almost certainly a child murderer. I think most historians now believe it to be so.

Wonder if he ought to have had a Catholic ceremony?

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.

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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 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 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 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.

granjura I agree I always think he is slightly bonkers.

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