Saturday, March 15, 2014

Why Richard III should be buried in Leicester Cathedral

I wrote a long post on the controversy over the reburial of Richard III last September. As the hearing took place this week and the question is being discussed again, I thought I would report the most important part of it.

That part is a quotation from a letter to the Leicester Mercury written by Helena Edwards of Birstall:
There are lots of arguments to be had about Richard III's reinterment, but I find two compelling. 
Firstly, if a court over-rules the Ministry of Justice's licence to exhume and then rebury in Leicester cathedral, it will destroy the authority of that licensing system, which is essential to the preservation of the dignity of the human beings whose remains are moved. 
Secondly, it will empower future hyena packs to cash in on the archaeological work of others, without ever having to initiate, organise, fund or take financial risks on complex multi-agency projects themselves. This can only harm the future of heritage investigation and protection projects, especially in times when state funding for such work is disappearing fast.

4 comments:

MJ Simpson said...

See, what you're trying to do there is present a valid argument about history and archaeology and all that sort of thing. But of course, that is easily trumped by:

But York was his home and he was called Richard of York and he said he wanted to be buried in York and anyway York Minster is bigger and prettier than Leicester Cathedral....

You can't reason with nutters who can't even deal with the present day, let alone 500 years of history. The sad thing is that one Judge decided to indulge these nutters to make a political point, and now look what we've got.

Lord Welby said...

There is absolutely NO evidence that Richard had stated a desire to be buried in York FACT ! (It is more likely he would have opted for Fotheringay) and he did not live in York, he lived for some of his life in Yorkshire. The points raised by Helena Edwards are very compelling indeed. However, the most compelling for me, and I suspect the vast majority of people, is ensuring that whatever happens, these grubby band of 'InjuryLawyersRus' jackals fail ! What they are doing is immoral, indecent and above all, denigrates Richard's memory and reduces this historic occasion to a game show prize !

Christine Headley said...

He probably intended to be buried at Windsor, like his brother Edward IV. His wife is in Westminster Abbey. However, he had re-buried his father and brother Edmund (Earl of Rutland, Jonathan) at Fotheringhay (not York, and his father was Duke of York, and presumably could have interred him at York if he had wanted to). Richard himself had been Duke of Gloucester....

Jonathan Calder said...

Thanks, Christine.

If I ever produce a complete works of Lord Bonkers, the epigraph will be "Steeped in the faultless blood of pretty Rutland."