To think they should leave dead kings where they are?

(36 Posts)
Goldmandra Wed 12-Sep-12 22:37:02

and other people who died a long time ago?

How long does someone have to be dead before it's OK to dig them up again?

PicklesThePottyMouthedParrot Wed 12-Sep-12 22:40:39

I'd rather be moved than have a lidls on my head.

Yellowtip Wed 12-Sep-12 22:41:37

I'd want to be dug up if I was buried under a social services car park, Leicester or not, king or not, murderous hunchback or not (etc.). He's in with a shout for Leicester cathedral. Good for him I say.

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 22:41:50

But now we know he is there, it would be very inconvenient and a possible healthy and safety hazard for the carpark users to keep having to deal with Richard III fanatics standing there communing with his spirit and leaving flowers where they need to park their cars.

JumpingThroughMoreHoops Wed 12-Sep-12 22:41:53

Who in particular has caught your attention??

I don't personally hold with grave disturbance, it sits uneasy, but I suppose if the remaining tombs in th Valley of the kings weren't opened, or celtic burial mounds, we would know little about history. I'm never at ease with remains on display though

EdithWeston Wed 12-Sep-12 22:43:00

I think I'd rather be dug up and reinterred rather than being the foundations of a car park.

And compared to how the bones and body parts of mediaeval saints were hawked around, it's positively respectful. DCs were a bit disappointed that St Chad's Head chapel in Lichfield Cathedral no longer had St Chad's head in it (I don't remember if the guidebook said where it finally finished up).

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 22:43:47

It would be terrible if there was an unseemly wrangle over who should get the remains, wouldn't it? Just terrible.

I like the suggestion of taking him back to Middleham Castle, but then there's Westminster Abbey to consider. Leicester Cathedral is really not that great and in desperate need of something vaguely interesting to pull in some tourists.

Goldmandra Wed 12-Sep-12 22:45:05

jumping

Someone reckons they've found Richard III under a car park in Leicester.

Yellowtip Wed 12-Sep-12 22:47:49

Two of my close relations were 'dug up' and moved back to their home country in Eastern Europe in 1994. I think they flew Lot. I'm sure they're happier there than in N.London though (they were by a very, very busy road).

JumpingThroughMoreHoops Wed 12-Sep-12 22:53:07

thank you gold found the article

Also has spinal abnormalities and an individual form of spinal curvature, consistent with accounts of Richard III

Allegedly a Tudor myth. The Tudors had the first of 'spin doctors'. Richard III was superbly dissed by Henry VII when he took the crown at Bosworth. There was never any prior mention of Richard III being deformed.

I see the body is on the old Grey Friars site which is one of several supposed burial places of Richard III.

I wonder what ever happened to the Two Princes?

Yellowtip Wed 12-Sep-12 22:53:51

Well when you say 'someone reckons they've found' Richard III: the bloke in question does happen to have an arrow in his back, curvature of the spine and was killed by a massive blow to the head which all fits with contemporary accounts of his mishaps in battle, physique and the manner of his demise. And this skeleton has been found in the church where Richard III was always believed to have been buried. Sounds plausible to me.

qo Wed 12-Sep-12 22:54:02

"I'd rather be moved than have a lidls on my head"

hahahaaahahahaaaa!!! grin

TunipTheVegemal Wed 12-Sep-12 22:54:46

Come and join us on the other thread here

Yellowtip Wed 12-Sep-12 22:55:08

I'm guessing you're a Tudor then Hoops.

KitCat26 Wed 12-Sep-12 22:56:40

Sorry I find it fascinating <disclaimer-archaeology geek> so yabu.

And they will bury all the skeletons again probably after years of research. I thought they had already decided where they would reinterr Richard III if it turned out to be him?

Edith if your kids want to see a skull, go to St Gregory's in Sudbury, Suffolk. Simon of Sudbury's head is in there after he was beheaded by the mob during the Peasants revolt. Not a saint, but a Lord Chancellor.

EdithWeston Wed 12-Sep-12 22:56:57

I thought I heard the skeleton showed signs of scoliosis - a progressive curvature of the spine which varies enormously in both rate of onset and degree of severity. It's a diagnosis which could cover a gradual change in appearance, and be a grain of truth underlying a monstrous hunchback myth?

He ought to be in Westminister Abbey with the rest of them!

EdithWeston Wed 12-Sep-12 22:58:56

Kitcat26: thanks! We'll have a look if we're ever that way. They did have a macabre fascination with the shrunken heads in the Wellcome Collection.

crackcrackcrak Wed 12-Sep-12 22:59:11

I'm sooooo excited about this. I'm from Leicester and I get v geeky about Richard III grin

Viviennemary Wed 12-Sep-12 23:02:36

Well I wouldn't normally agree with this but it's not very dignified to be buried in a car park. Not for a King and I'm not even a royalist.

Colyngbourne Wed 12-Sep-12 23:05:11

If Leicester doesn't have him, then York Minster should, and would be preferable IMO.

No way should he be in Westminster Abbey anywhere near Henry Tudor - and wouldn't have wanted to be in the south anyway. He was likely preparing York as his final resting place.

As the only King of England without a designated tomb, it's fair enough that they've tried to find his remains. As yet, it's not proven that these are they.

JumpingThroughMoreHoops Wed 12-Sep-12 23:05:42

I'm guessing you're a Tudor then Hoops.

Norman as it happens - like anyone else who faffs about with family tree, I'm the 27/g/granddaughter of William the Conquerer - as are about 20 million other people in the UK! thats the trouble with a matriarchal line - girls are just so unimportant! 5 generations later, I haven't even got a princess as g/g granny let alone a Lady or a mere Right Hon!

finduspancakes Wed 12-Sep-12 23:05:43

If you knew that place, you'd want to be moved too.

Henry Tudor had only a tenuous link to the throne. Bury HIM under a carpark instead!

Goldmandra Wed 12-Sep-12 23:38:53

Am I alone in finding it a bit intrusive?

I was once given an impromptu tour of an archaeological dig and found myself looking straight down into a grave-shaped hole onto a full skeleton.

It felt like a gross invasion of that person's privacy and completely wrong to be poking around. The fact that they'd been there a while didn't make it feel any better.

They'll never know for sure if it was him or not so what's the point?

DH says he hopes the council are sending him a backdated parking bill wink

Are there many Richard III fanatics who would come to commune with his spirit and leave flowers?

PatronSaintOfDucks Wed 12-Sep-12 23:40:39

I think it's a matter of how much one's alive compatriots see the issue. Lots of native American tribes (north and south) seriously mind their ancestors, even from a thousand years ago, being dug up and poked in labs and museums. They successfully fought some cases. Most people of European descent, however, don't mind a bit of morbid fascination if the deceased person is not their close relative and is removed from them by a couple hundred years. However, even we in Europe have boundaries - it's ok to put people from a couple of thousand years ago in museum, but somebody who's been in the ground for only a couple of hundred can be respectfully researched, but then must be put back in some tomb.

There is also got to be some kind of international legislation on this.

Goldmandra Thu 13-Sep-12 00:28:08

It's all a bit bizarre really.

I don't even know why it bothered me so much as I couldn't care less what happens to my body when I die as long as long as whoever I leave behind isn't upset by it.

There are many places, where you dont get to be buried forever. You get a grave when you are newly dead, but after a certain length of time, you get exhumed, and your bones stacked in a charnel house.

TunipTheVegemal Thu 13-Sep-12 06:51:42

PatronSaint - it would be hard to have international legislation when different cultures & religions view it so differently.

Goldmandra Thu 13-Sep-12 08:20:36

I'f forgotten about that Saggy.

Maybe IAMBU to think he's got a right to be left in peace then. Lots of people seem to get dug up for various reasons.

There are lots of guidelines about digging up bodies. My department are 1/4 archaeologists and they do masses of training about being respectful. I think they would work very carefully.

I don't imagine he would mind anyway. Medieval people were mad keen on chopping up dead bodies and burying a bit here, a bit there, digging them up, popping them into reliqueries, burying them again, making pretty patterns with bones ... they didn't have the same ideas about dead bodies that we do. I would put money on that he would think it was respectful to be re-buried properly, rather than minding about being disturbed.

It's like that bit in Hamlet with the gravedigger being all matter-of-fact about how long it takes to decompose a corpse, and when you have to clear out the bones for the next person - people were much more in touch with all of this stuff, and not too fussed about it. Just google 'transi tomb' to see.

Goldmandra Thu 13-Sep-12 09:00:27

"Medieval people were mad keen on chopping up dead bodies and burying a bit here, a bit there, digging them up, popping them into reliqueries, burying them again, making pretty patterns with bones"

LRD that made me laugh grin

You're right of course, although I may pass on Googling 'transitomb' shock

I lurve my medieval dead people. I am glad it made you laugh. smile

Though, people still do it I guess. A year or two ago DH's church had a relic sent to them so everyone could visit, and you can go and kiss the bones if you feel so inclined. Not my thing at all, but it does go to show that not everyone has the same attitude to death.

The best opening line of a historical novel ever has to be from The Bone Peddler: 'In the crypt of the Abbey Church at Hallowdene the monks were boiling their Bishop...'

WhatYouLookingAt Thu 13-Sep-12 09:04:49

A gross invasion of who's privacy? They are long dead, they don't exist anymore, they don't have any privacy to be invaded. Just a bag of bones.

Goldmandra Thu 13-Sep-12 11:12:19

"A gross invasion of who's privacy?"

I know it sounds bizarre. It was not something I had ever thought about before. It was just an emotion which hit me as I looked down, as if we were all standing round staring at a complete stranger in bed or something.

It wasn't logical at all. He/she was long dead.

Maybe it was because our involvement was driven by curiosity rather than performing a service or ritual we think of as laying to rest.\

We preserve the privacy and dignity of the recent dead. Why not those who have been in the ground a while? How long is long enough?

I would be quite pleased at the thought of someone digging up (what was left of) me in a few hundred years for research, provided there was something interesting enough about me for them to bother!

Doubt I will ever be Queen of England though, so they might not be interested in my relatively unexciting life...

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now