Leicester or York?

[FashionFail]

Reburial in Leicester?

Or in York?

(York! York! York!)

It was Leicester Uni and City Council, yes, but my point was that it is not the "community" of Leicester that has been looking out for Richard/looking after his remains - it was in reference to the silly quote from the Scarborough councillor. Towns as entities can't claim "they" have done anything.

Whereas the Society has definitely specifically kept Richard's memory alive in Leicester (and in other places).

But nothing to do with the financing means that any of these bodies should have a say in what happens to the remains. ie it should not be Leicester Uni's decision as to where this king is laid to rest. Nor should it be the City Council's decision, nor the Society's.

The exhumation licence doesn't actually stipulate that the remains "have to" be buried as close at possible to where they were found but that "the bones can be buried in any consecrated ground where interments can take place". It doesn't have to be Leicester by any means.

Am very much in agreement with Colyngbourne's excellent posts. Apart from where she said I'd said "the archeological practice of re-interment close to the place of exhumation is 'good practice'" because, um, I didn't. And yes I have just reread things several times Just In Case.

Sorry, ZebraOwl - must have got my posts confused! And also the inability to edit posts here means I couldn't correct it.

Please don't even mention the Richard III museum, it doesn't deserve to be called a museum and I am dead sure they didn't put a penny towards that venture.

Having said that... I still think that the " we found him we keep him" from the University of Leicester' is a disgrace, talk about espolio...
They didn't want him there, the remains have been found in the 21st Century so it id not as if he has to be buried near the battleground for health and safety issues.

IMO, he should be re interred in York because of his connections to the city, or sent to Westminster Abbey because he was a King (this is, historically, the current monarch's prerrogative so I hope she decides to make a call...

York.

No worries Colyngbourne: was really REALLY confused for a bit though (fail, self, fail)

Leicester.

How about under the theatre in Stratford to haunt all the impersonators blackening his name?

He's going to haunt Leicester, for not burying him at York.

Which will increase the tourist revenue no end!

Trust me , we need the tourist revenue.

Is the tomb of a dead king really much of a tourist draw though? TBH I doubt it. They're sort of interesting if you happen to be in a cathedral anyway, but not something I could imagine many people making a special trip for.

It might boost the numbers a bit to somewhere that was worth going to for other reasons.

I think there is indirect value too, like making it feel a bit less like nothing's every happened in Leicester raising the city's profile, and getting the city council to take archaeological heritage a bit more seriously.
I think once you were already visiting Leicester it would encourage you to go to the cathedral where previously you might not have bothered.

I feel all protective over my hometown, reading this thread.

This is a big thing for Leicester, please let us have some of the glory.

The thing is the Bosworth Battlefield site and (now discovered not to be quite on the same spot) the Battlefield Heritage Centre are in Leicestershire as well, so I think people interested in the battlefield would go to look at the king's tomb in the city as well.

Good point, fossil.

York.

But it shouldn't be about the tourism. There should be no element of 'tourism' in how this decision has been made/should be made. A king's remains should be laid in a place of great national significance, and in a place significant to the king in question, preferably in a place that he would have wished for his burial - in the event of there being no will, the location should be surmised by those with expertise (medieval historians, experts on Richard III) from all available evidence. And everything points to York, and nothing points to Leicester, at that point.

Other than the licence, there is no reason for him to be buried in Leicester, and even the licence allows for him to be buried elsewhere if Leicester University decided that could be the case.

Wot Coly said.

You know what, I think what's bugging me is the disingenuousness of the official statements on the matter.
I'm not even convinced deciding it by which city will benefit most is the wrong thing to do, but I would prefer it if they came out and said that was what they were doing, rather than 'oh the terms of the excavation license said Leicester so it's got to be there' when that is clearly bollocks.

I agree in part, tunip. I think there is disingenuousness. I also think the statements "concurring" from York Minster and the Society are just some fumble at not kicking up a fuss after a fait accompli - in some ways, it's hardly their fault that they are deciding to go along with what the University already decided months ago. The Society is saying "please don't make this a controversy" as if it isn't one already. People (myself included) feel very strongly about this. The Society says "it's okay to re-bury Richard in the city where his body was treated so abominably and we are not going to be to be an advocate for re-burying him somewhere appropriate to his possible wishes" - this is the Society which purports to support King Richard? The Society is not speaking for a good many of its members in this. Every time I ask "if Richard were asked where he wished to be buried, in Leicester or somewhere else (York, Windsor etc), he would not say "Leicester", it is pretty much disregarded by anyone who supports Leicester. I get that some people want Leicester, and I get some of the reasons, but I don't think they stand up against reasons for York/Windsor/somewhere Richard might have actually wanted to be!

If he ends up buried in Leicester - as it seems will be the case - it will be just another case of terrible injustice against a king who has had more than his share. So we shouldn't be surprised.

The Richard III Society has a design for a tomb already.

Loving your work on this thread Colyngbourne

Although I spent many happy years in Leicester, my vote also goes for York, because of the treatment of Richard's body after Bosworth, and because of all the contemporary evidence that points to the respect that the people of York had for Richard, and he for them.

The online petition to have Richard buried in York has now reached 21k signatures. At what point/number does the Government have to acknowledge the petition, and what do they have to do about it? Debate in the House? Some kind of lip-servie paid to it at PMQs?

As Tunip said, I can't imagine Cameron will spend too much time on it, but 21k signatures is a lot.

When it reaches 100k they have to consider it for a debate. Only consider it, though.

When most of the petitions reach 20k they get some kind of formal response, but it's usually a fobbing-off type response that just annoys people.

It did get a lot of sigs remarkably quickly but I can't see it making 100k unless there is some kind of tv publicity for the campaign.

I'd better repost the link to my FB page then!

Am just about to read Rosemary Hawley Jarman's The White Rose turned to Blood. In her foreword she says that Richard's remains were disinterred from Greyfriars during the Dissolution of the Monasteries and were thrown into the River Soar. Oh no they weren't!

Ha, that's excellent, Ilovemyteddy!

There was a man in the York Press trying to get him buried in Sheriff Hutton.

I like the tomb design, very elegant and would look lovely in the Minster