Leicester: isn’t it nice? Photo: Chris

So, Leicester it is then, for Richard III. I thought I should record the court judgement on here, as the ‘battle for the bones’ has been featured many times on these pages in the past, and hopefully this judgement settles the matter.

This morning, at 10am, I was looking at Twitter, listening to Radio York, refreshing the Richard III search results, waiting for the announcement regarding the legal challenge over the planned re-interment in Leicester.

And here we have it:

A reply came swiftly from another distant relative of Richard III who wasn’t part of the Plantagenet Alliance pointing out that not all of those who could be seen as relatives/descendants supported the court action. Some were happy with the arrangements at Leicester.

Which reminds us of just one of the important points in all of this — that there are many many people who are distantly related to King Richard III. Should their views have been canvassed too? And how?

That there was no way of canvassing their opinion or public opinion in general is just one of the points made in the official document: High Court judgement: Plantagenet Alliance v Leicester City Council and others (Richard III burial)

there is no sensible basis for imposing a requirement for a general public consultation, with leaflets, on-line petitions, publicity campaigns, nor for advertisements trying to ascertain who is a relative and then weighing their views against the general public

Though the two e-petitions last year presumably already demonstrated public opinion to a certain extent:

The Leicester petition to keep the remains in Leicester: 34,477 signatures
The petition calling for a York Minster burial: 31,349 signatures

No evidence of a wish, says the judgement

Poster produced by City of York Council, 2013. Photo: Minster FM

I wanted to include this poster before, but couldn’t find it online. It reappeared this morning on the Minster FM website.

It appeared in the early months of 2013, produced by City of York Council and displayed at the entrance to the Guildhall. It read:

‘If you’d like to back our campaign to respect the wishes of King Richard III to be buried in York please go to …’
followed by a web address for the online petition.

Something so clearly open to interpretation and dispute should never have been presented in this way as fact, by a local authority. It was completely unhelpful and misleading. Because the council said it was true, many people accepted it without question, and who can blame them.

But there’s no evidence, it’s not a ‘fact’. As the judgement published today states:

There was no direct evidence of any definitive wishes expressed by Richard III as to his place of burial, whether on the assumption that he would die in peace after a long reign, or on the assumption that he would lose the battle of Bosworth, and be killed along with his men. In our view, the suggestion that Richard III was to have endowed a chancery at York with 100 chaplains falls short of any definitive or overriding expression of where he wished to be buried.

Our leaders and representatives who should have known better have stirred up a lot of emotion, more heat than light, and sadly Julian Sturdy, MP for York Outer, still is, in today’s Press.

A rational decision

Interesting to see the response in legal terms, made by experts, on rational and legal grounds, in the midst of the mess of opposing views, and strong emotional or perhaps religious/spiritual beliefs. I respect people’s religious/emotional/spiritual feelings and wouldn’t want to cause any offence, but this had to be decided in legal and rational terms, didn’t it. So it was. So the judgement decided in favour of the original plan. Bold emphasis added:

The preferred location accorded with best practice for the reburial of archaeological Christian human remains, namely, the nearest church or churchyard in the same Parish as the Friary.

— that Friary where he was originally buried, more recently known as ‘a car park’. (There are people who seem to think it was a car park in the 15th century and that ‘Leicester buried him under a car park’ as a deliberately disrespectful act.)

Just Richard

One of the interesting details I’ve noticed is the way some of those who have been deeply involved with this dispute have stopped referring to the remains as those of ‘King Richard’ or ‘Richard III’ and now just refer to them by the rather more relaxed and familiar ‘Richard’, like he’s a mate of theirs.

Which leads me on nicely to where I wanted to end up. This morning in the radio broadcast from Leicester Cathedral I was struck by the way one of the speakers was trying to get the focus back to the respectful treatment of these human remains, reminding us that Richard was a man who had died in battle.

And that battle, of course, is part of his story. If he stays there in Leicester, future generations will perhaps be assisted in their understanding of that story. I liked the fact that the legal judgement included mention of the ordinary men who fought with him, and that the cathedral in Leicester is:

close to the battlefield where the men who fought for and with Richard III were killed, and were probably buried.

This reminded me of comment by ‘Chappy1884′ on a story last year on the Leicester Mercury website, a comment I found thought-provoking and quite moving, as it brought the ‘human’ part of this king’s story to life more than other comments I’d read:

So from that decision, through years of quietly being at rest, to an archaeological excavation, to an unseemly mess, to today’s decision, to his soon being laid to rest again not far away from where he was for 500 years.

Struggling to see any good from this

Over the last year, I’ve watched the debate and online wrangling, seen how nasty and personal it has become at times, how much energy so many of us have wasted discussing what should happen. I’ve seen ‘York’ set against ‘Leicester’, I’ve seen racism, and people calling each other ‘bonkers’. It didn’t bring out the best in anyone.

I guess it’s brought income to people who’ve written books about it. Has it achieved anything else?

Personally I wish he had been left at rest where he was.

Comments are welcome if you’d like to point out the positives from all of this, as I can’t see them.

The post To rest in Leicester: Richard III judgement appeared first on York Stories.

… more commonly known as ‘the Grobs’

This pub, on Rougier Street in York, was for a brief time in the 1980s called ‘The Richard III’. (Actually those of us who frequented it called it ‘the Grobs’, after its earlier name, the ‘Grob and Ducat’.)

I have to say that with one honourable exception (see footnote) references to this pub were the only time I heard Richard III mentioned in York, until 2013, when it all ‘kicked off’. I realised the Minster had become a focus of attention, and as I wasn’t particularly familiar with this period in our history I went looking for facts, and tried to find some clarity in a mess of myth and misunderstanding.

As the subject is in the news again because of the recent judicial review, I’d like to reflect on some aspects of the last twelve months or so since the reburial row began. The reactions and representations mainly, rather than the big question itself.

2013: York remembers Richard

York ‘House Book’ and boar badge on display at the Yorkshire Museum, Oct 2013

Suddenly, in 2013, the city was being presented as the king’s ‘true home’. York has decades of experience in promoting its history, and our tourism and heritage industry sprang into action to demonstrate the city’s links to Richard III.

There were exhibitions, a whole new website, and walking tours.

In online comments Leicester was accused frequently of being greedy, of wanting to ‘cash in’, but it was in York that the chance to handle a rare jewel with a vague Richard III connection was offered only to those who had a spare fifty quid.

At least those responses seemed (on the whole) creative and educational. Whereas the first stumblings into the subject by City of York Council and our MPs embarrassed many York citizens. The Council had posters printed supporting the petition to bring the remains to York Minster, ‘to honour the living wishes‘, they said, confidently. We now know that there was no such evidence of this wish, that it’s all open to interpretation, but it wasn’t long before the internet was full of it, romanticised often into references to ‘his dying wish’.

York v Leicester, sort of

Yorkshire Museum, October 2013

Julian Sturdy proclaimed in a debate that ‘the call is strong from the great county of Yorkshire’. Actually I thought the call from Leicester was much stronger, if you bothered to investigate how Leicester already commemorated and celebrated its links with Richard III. These seemed long-running and well-established.

Into the ‘battle’ came charging an impressive and passionately-argued blog. ‘Leicester Loves Richard’ began in brilliance, shooting up into internet cyberspace like a rocket. Even its title was perfect. We kept hearing that ‘Richard loved York’. The title neatly reversed that, and brought the love into the present – we were talking about a city now, with an active and present attachment – rather than trying to interpret what medieval society and its kings might have thought. (Sadly that blog burnt out, getting bogged down in rather more personalised wranglings.)

E-petition wars

Leicester, in 2013. Photo: Chris

As a York born-and-bred person with a website about York and Yorkshire maintained for ten years I hope it’s obvious that I have deep roots here and that I care deeply about the place and its history. I also care about misrepresentation, and I particularly care when our elected representatives claim to speak for ‘York’ and get it so wrong.

The e-petition signatures were presented by Hugh Bayley MP and others as some kind of reflection of local opinion. The truth was more complicated, as previously discussed. Many of the people wanting to send the king’s remains to York didn’t live anywhere near York, as the available postcode data shows.

Interesting to observe how the e-petition system was used and viewed in this whole RIII debate. The petitions on the government site are meant to be there for the purpose of gathering enough signatures to give the petition a chance of being debated in Parliament. Neither the pro-York nor the pro-Leicester petition would get anywhere near the 100,000 signatures necessary. That seemed irrelevant, as ‘York’ and ‘Leicester’ went head to head, in a race the pro-Leicester petition ultimately ‘won’ (34,477 signatures against the pro-York 31,349).

Digging up the Minster

East end, York Minster

I’m still wondering, after so much money, time and effort has gone into the Leicester plans, how it could work, or would work, here in York, should the pro-York campaigners be successful. It has been difficult enough to get a plan together for a Leicester reburial, and that’s a relatively modern building.

No one has been buried in York Minster since the 19th century. We’re now in the 21st century, with very strict rules about what you can do with the fabric of ancient buildings like York Minster. The Minster looks big and empty because of various repavings, but under its floor are loads of bodies. We can’t just dig them up and shift them out of the way because we need to fit in a king. Or maybe we can. But we’ll probably have further arguments about that. It could go on for years yet.

A true ‘son of York’ who didn’t get a Minster burial

Tomb of William Etty

The talk of York Minster burials has reminded me of William Etty – whose statue stands in Exhibition Square. Etty was a true ‘son of York’. Born here, he cared deeply about the city, and was a high profile voice in the campaign to save its walls from destruction. He wanted to be buried in York Minster.

But was he? No. He was put in a tomb in the graveyard of St Olave’s, near the arches of St Mary’s Abbey, his ‘dying wish’ unfulfilled. For the generations coming after, it does at least mean that if we want to see his tomb we can easily do so, for free, whenever the Museum Gardens are open, rather than paying the entrance fee to York Minster.

The Leicester Mercury captures real York

Leicester brings its petition to York, October 2013. (c) Mike Sewell, Leicester Mercury

Thousands of words have been written on this ‘reburial row’. I think I ended up reading most of them. The best article I’ve seen, the one I was cheered and amused by, was in the Leicester Mercury, and involved a visit to York by two of its reporters. They dashed through the city, cheekily presenting the ‘pro-Leicester’ petition to people they met.

I’d seen so many ludicrously romanticised and out of date representations of York, and this one at last showed the York I know. It mentioned Michelle Wyatt, who at that time was sitting in King’s Square collecting signatures for her petition. It mentioned traders on the market. It properly captured the misunderstandings abounding at that time. And more importantly, the general apathy, and the feeling that is probably more common than a desperate desire to ‘bring him home’ – as expressed by market trader Gordon David: “Leave him where he is, the poor bugger,” he said. “He’s had enough.”

The concerns of kings, and the people of York, then and now

In autumn 2013 I visited the Richard III exhibition in the Yorkshire Museum. I dashed in, late in the day, York Card in hand. My enquiry as to which part of the building this particular exhibition was in brought the response that they no longer had the head, in an apologetic tone, as if I might find this news disappointing. I said I hadn’t come to see the head, I’d come to see The Book.

York ‘House Book’, in the Richard III exhibition at the Yorkshire Museum

Actually I was a bit tired of seeing that head, that recreated ‘how he would have looked’ head. I saw it on every article about Richard III, every blog posting, everywhere. I’d not felt a need to visit The Head. But I did want to see The Book.

Conservation of the York ‘House Book’

And what a beautiful thing it is. The most impressive aspect of it is described in the explanatory text, pictured here, detailing the skill and care involved in preserving this fragile document. Worth going just to see that. It’s still there, now open on the page recording Richard III’s death.

I’d like to end the page with this explanatory background display, from the same exhibition:

‘The concerns of kings’ – from the Yorkshire Museum exhibition

‘The concerns of kings rarely reached the streets of medieval York. Most people were concerned with the daily grind of work and worship.’

Remove the ‘and worship’ and the word ‘medieval’ and it’s just the same today, isn’t it.

Footnote

Richard III Museum founder Mike Bennett worked hard to promote York’s connections to the controversial king, for years, long before the ‘king in the car park’ events, and I wouldn’t want to end this page without acknowledging that. (As mentioned on these pages recently, Mike Bennett was also the founder of the Comedy Shack.)

The post The concerns of kings … York’s ‘Richard III’ year appeared first on York Stories.

I wanted to understand – or at least locate the source for – the oft-repeated claim that Richard III wished to be buried in York Minster.

Here are some people who should know what they’re talking about.

No actual evidence for the ‘wish’ or ‘plan’?

From the websites of the Richard III Society, and the University of York, which I think we can assume are knowledgeable and authoritative sources. I’ve pulled out relevant quotes, but reading the full article gives the proper context, of course:

Claims of a wish or plan

The City of York Council and York Museums Trust should also be authoritative and reliable sources of information. And both declare that there was a wish or plan:

This appears to contradict the statement previously included above, also by Mark Ormrod. Which is a bit baffling.

In trying to find the source of the Mark Ormrod statement on the CoYC page, I put both his comments above into Google. Google found just one other occurrence of the quote disputing the York Minster wish/plan, but quite a few more occurrences of the quote supporting it. So clearly one interpretation is more popular than the other.

But what are the facts? Open to interpretation, clearly.

See also: discussion and comment

Passion, cathedrals and Richard III. ‘Ricardians come in a bewildering variety of flavours’. This Ricardian describes beautifully and clearly the progress of thoughts, and the insights found, in the course of the recent debate. Helped me understand some of the stronger feelings involved.

A long-running discussion (91 pages at present): Is Leicester really a fitting resting place for Richard III? on Digital Spy forums.

There’s been an announcement today of a legal challenge regarding the exhumation licence, reported in the Press.

This is obviously going to be debated for some time yet.

The post Fact-finding: Richard III debate appeared first on York Stories.

Me neither. Which is why there’s yet another page on this subject …

In the campaigning to have Richard III’s remains reinterred in York the city’s elected representatives have some enthusiastic support from all corners of the world. But perhaps not as much as they’re suggesting from the people who actually live here and who voted for them.

We may have been hoping that it would all die down, but last week the ‘York v Leicester’ Richard III wrangle went to Westminster.

Honourable friends

Last Tuesday York Central MP Hugh Bayley, and Jonathan Ashworth, MP for Leicester South, unfurled banners and rode into the hall on horses, and had a jousting contest in front of cheering crowds, to settle the York v Leicester thing.

No, not really. It was merely a debate.

Harking back to past conflicts, Mr Bayley wore an enormous white rose in his buttonhole. I wondered if it might be one of those joke flowers clowns wear, which squirt water, and if he might aim it at his Leicester opponent. But no.

He emphasised the need to calm things down, and called for an independent body to decide the most suitable reburial site. He said he didn’t want to set York against Leicester and made jokes about not wanting to restart the Wars of the Roses. Actually, seeing the online discussions, divisions opening up, I keep thinking of the civil wars of the 17th century, when neighbour fought against neighbour.

He mentioned abusive correspondence sent to York Minster. And of course this was the headline picked up by the media. We might wonder why elected officials didn’t see that it would be damaging and divisive for a city’s MPs and local authority to start campaigning against the stated position of the city’s cathedral.

Of course none of those officials speaking up for a York Minster burial will admit that it’s mainly about tourism. According to the recent campaign, York people all love Richard and want to ‘bring him home’. Not that he actually lived in York Minster. Or even in York.

Wish bones

Our MPs and City of York Council officials have eagerly stated over and over that they only want to honour Richard’s ‘wish’ to be buried in York Minster. CoYC even had a poster printed, displayed at the entrance to the city’s Guildhall, calling on residents to support Richard’s ‘wishes’ regarding a York Minster burial. In presenting this as undisputed fact they’re disregarding entirely the questions historians might ask, and the doubts they might raise. Whenever anyone asks in online forums for indisputable proof of this wish none is produced, because there isn’t any.

Julian Sturdy, MP for York Outer, also spoke in the debate, again promoting this ‘wish’ for a York Minster burial. The debate’s best moment was Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South MP), querying:

‘… there’s actually no evidence that he said he wanted to be buried there, is there.’

Julian Sturdy could have said ‘No, we’re just focussing on this alleged wish because it’s getting a lot of support’. But instead swerved into an evasive ‘the evidence comes from the city of York’. And then tried to change tack a little with mention of his ‘living descendants’. Then resorted to: ‘the call is strong, from the great county of Yorkshire’.

YEAH, WE’RE SHOUTING AT YOU GUYS TO STOP MISREPRESENTING US AND REPEATING QUESTIONABLE ‘FACTS’. CAN YOU HEAR US YET?

Spreading dissent

The BBC’s Question Time is in York this coming week, and this will obviously be one of the issues discussed.

It’s all got very silly. Hugh Bayley says he doesn’t want a fight, but everyone out here can see that there is one.

Elected representatives like Hugh Bayley don’t have time to read the results of their proclamations, the ripples outward, the result in online comment and social media. Which is often misinformed, factually incorrect, often outraged (with a lot of exclamation marks). I’ve seen some ludicrous, laughable comments online about the city of York and the county of Yorkshire, and what we want. And some equally ignorant, and racist, comments about Leicester. Occasionally, sensible observations.

The majority of local residents probably don’t feel as strongly as I do, or as my correspondent quoted above does. Most, I think, are indifferent. I can’t blame them for that: I wish I’d remained in the ‘don’t care’ camp. But perhaps if we do care, and don’t feel that the ‘bring him home’ campaign represents our view, we should make that known.

In Leicester, they’re already arguing about the proposed tomb, as the cathedral thinks a slab type arrangement would be more suitable, but many want a more obvious and substantial monument. Because of the rival bid, Leicester is under increasing pressure to prove it is fit to host the royal remains.

And in Westminster Hall last Tuesday another MP suggested Richard’s bones should be brought up to Yorkshire for a ‘lying in state’ at York Minster. And again there’s debate about the need for a Catholic service.

Too much conflict and argument, and more to come. If the remains were to come to York it would only get more overblown and more ornate. There’d be calls perhaps for the closure of all city centre streets, for a full state funeral with a horse-drawn hearse. Perhaps a minute’s silence at Bootham Crescent before a York City game …

A well-worn phrase comes to mind, directed not at the poor wrangled-over bones of a long-dead human being, but at those who are arguing over them.

Be careful what you wish for?

What other people are saying …

A small selection of comments noticed while browsing, a representative sample perhaps. I’ll leave my readers to decide which they find most accurate.

‘They should collect Anne from Westminster and bury them together, either at York or Fotheringhay.’
Comment on Fit for a king? Royal row rumbles on over where Richard III should be laid to rest

‘The people of Yorkshire (and York in particular) have doggedly honoured King Richard for more than 500 years’
neocossack, on Dean of York goes to the police over Richard III hate mail

‘Good to see there are still cap-doffing peasants abroad in the land.’
Thwyllo, on Fit for a king? Royal row rumbles on …

‘Richard is from York, he has the right to be buried in his Minster, not in a provincial city where his countrymen are now outnumbered by foreigners. To bury him in Leicester would be deeply insulting to this English king.’
fraternal, on Dean of York goes to the police over Richard III hate mail

More information

The website of the Richard III Society, news section: their report of the adjournment debate, explanation and clarification. They also include an article by the historian Peter Hammond: Richard III and York, discussing the evidence regarding Richard III’s ‘wishes’. Very clear and helpful information.

Hansard: full transcript of the debate. Or available to view here. Jonathan Ashworth’s question, mentioned above, is at 21 mins 45.

For earlier postings on this subject, select the ‘Richard III’ tag or see recent postings list.

. . . . .

Apologies to those who find this boring. I hope normal service will resume shortly. Haven’t got out much in recent weeks …

The post Wishes and white roses: Richard III, again appeared first on York Stories.

The unseemly wrangle to wrest Richard III’s bones from Leicester has quietened a little, but will no doubt resurface again.

When I heard that the remains were to be reburied in Leicester I thought that was sensible and civilised. York Minster’s response was sensible and civilised. The reaction of the Ricardians has been on occasion so far from sensible that I felt our Minster needed defending from the imposition of this shrine to King Richard they seemed to be wanting to foist upon us. And then CoYC and our MP backed the campaign.

I’ve read a lot about Leicester since. And everything I’ve read has just reaffirmed my original belief that the remains should stay close to where they were originally buried, and that the York campaign is an embarrassment, something most residents don’t support.

Context

The skilful 21st century archaeological work and DNA identification is for many of us the most interesting part, so it makes complete sense that the remains stay close to where they were discovered, as their unearthing is the biggest part of their story, now, and for the future. Take them away from Leicester and disconnect from all that impressive scholarly research? Really don’t see the benefit to anyone in that. York would get a strangely disconnected royal tomb. We already have an embarrassment of historical riches here and can’t properly represent them as it is.

Only the rich could see Richard at York

York Minster charges a hefty entrance fee. Leicester Cathedral doesn’t. It would be far more egalitarian to have a tomb to this former monarch in a place free to access. And as he was a king of England it seems reasonable that he’s near the middle of it, and in one of its biggest cities.

Leicester’s overlooked history

In the public imagination, Leicester is seen as a modern city with ugly modern architecture, and with no visible ‘history’. Perhaps it doesn’t promote its history as York does, but, as my Leicester friend reminds me, they too have Roman bits, and streets called ‘gates’.

I’ve read many comments dismissing the cathedral where the remains are to be reinterred, suggesting that it’s too modern for a monarch, not grand enough. Again, looking deeper, this ‘modernity’ is merely the common situation of a Victorian rebuilding of the church already established here for centuries. It looks rather beautiful inside, particularly the area around the memorial they already have to Richard III, which has been in the cathedral for decades.

Leicester has been quietly paying its respects to Richard III for some time: every year on the anniversary of his death white roses are placed on his memorial stone in Leicester Cathedral.

The last decision

It was certainly illuminating to read the comments on the website of Leicester’s local paper. One of them in particular stayed with me. From ‘Chappy1884′:

Those last two sentences in particular did more to bring this king alive, and settle this into context, than anything else I’ve read in the last few weeks. Because they’re undeniably true. And so much I’ve read is conjecture, sentimental interpretation.

‘The last decision he made in his life was to go into battle’.

He, being a king, has already had far more consideration than any ordinary person would have had in that situation. If it’s important to ‘#bringhimhome’ (as they’re saying on Twitter) then it must be important to bring all the other battle casualties from all the other battles home too. All those bones aching for home. Except I don’t believe they are: it’s the living who care, and it’s the living creating this tug of war.

In particular, the worldwide supporters of Richard III, backed by City of York Council and our local MP, who are promoting this as being something ‘York’ wants.

All the York people I’ve spoken to had no desire to lay claim.

Misrepresentation of that petition …

Hugh Bayley said, in the York Press: ‘Richard is still well regarded by people in York and it is not surprising that 22,000 people have signed a petition calling for York Minster to be his final resting place.’

I’ve lived in York for 40+ years and didn’t recognise the picture of the city he represented here. The people of York are not standing around on the medieval streets singing their praises of old King Richard from centuries ago. I suspected that the majority of those who signed the petition weren’t from York/Yorkshire, yet Hugh Bayley’s statement suggested it represents our view.

He didn’t answer my request for further information, but the data is publicly available on the geographical area of signatories to the petition. Thanks to the friend who helped me retrieve it.

Of the 23,000 signatures (at the time the data was retrieved) to the petition, fewer than 6,000 are from a YO postcode.

This postcode covers a large area reaching Scarborough on the coast and a fair distance to the north, well beyond Hugh Bayley’s constituency and well beyond the City of York Council boundaries. At a rough estimate, CoYC have joined this campaign on the basis of fewer than 5,000 petition signatures from the 200,000 people they represent, and Hugh Bayley has jumped on the same bandwagon to represent a similarly small proportion of his electorate.

What this York person concludes

Let’s be happy he was found, and let’s leave him in Leicester. Respect his final brave decision to engage in battle nearby, respect the fact that he’s been dead 500 years and that he doesn’t care where his bones are. Those who are looking at York through rose-tinted, soft-focus, medieval-infused spectacles, please remove them. And perhaps ask why York’s elected officials showed no interest for centuries and were prepared to risk no funding towards the dig and research, but now think the city has a claim.

Elsewhere on these pages

Initial thoughts on the unseemly wrangle, and in defence of York Minster: York v Leicester: battle for the bones

Questions, further thoughts: Now is the winter of our discontent

And a later posting (18 March): Wishes and white roses: Richard III, again

Elsewhere on the web

This photo illustrates another part of historic Leicester: the church of St Mary de Castro and the Turret Gateway. Thanks to Chris for the photos on this page. His recent blog posting on this subject: Richard the Third, part 57

The website of Leicester Cathedral: ‘St Martin’s has been loved and prayed in for hundreds of years.’ More about its history.

Interesting range of comments on This is Leicestershire: Hands off Richard III – Leicester’s anger at campaign to bury King’s remains in York

A beautiful photo of the interior of Leicester Cathedral, and the memorial to Richard III

An interesting and illuminating blog posting on the charms of Leicester’s cathedral: Fit for a King? Kathryn thinks so.

Update, 10 March:
I’ve been Googling a lot trying to find informed and thoughtful postings on this subject, like Kathryn’s mentioned above. Thought I’d read everything, but just discovered this brilliant piece on why the reburial should be in Leicester which I urge everyone to read.

That page and this make very similar observations, to the point where I found myself shouting ‘yes!’ at my computer screen. At the time that was written, I was composing an earlier posting in reaction to the emerging wrangle. It took me a while to think through the issues from the starting point of my initial bafflement, but it’s interesting that I’ve ended up with such a similar view to those posted weeks earlier on that blog, though I hadn’t read it at the time of writing this page.

I should also mention that on Tuesday morning, Hugh Bayley, MP for York Central is leading an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on this issue. May be available to watch here.

The post Richard III, Part the Third appeared first on York Stories.

I’ve been asking myself ‘Why?’ a lot. Sharing some of the questions here …

Why are so many so bothered?

1) Because he was a king. Which means his bones are more important than other people’s bones. I dispute this but accept it’s the general view.

2) He has a massive number of supporters, even though he’s been dead for centuries. Respect to him for that.

3) His supporters want to bring him ‘home’. Whether York Minster is ‘home’ is my main ‘bone of contention’.

Why has it got so massive?

1) Because of impressive lobbying by his worldwide band of supporters, who genuinely care

2) Local politicians have noticed it’s popular, trending, and have championed it/jumped on the bandwagon

3) There’s a lot of tourist income to be gained from having these bones

4) It’s ended up as ‘York v Leicester’, simple and easy to promote in the media

Why would a York person not favour York Minster?

1) The official statement from York Minster said it wasn’t appropriate, which is clearly based on knowing the place and the issues involved better than we outside observers do

2) It’s 2013, not 1485. As far as I’m aware the Minster no longer buries people within its confines, and probably hasn’t done for a long while.

3) York doesn’t need this for tourism. The place is stuffed full of fascinating historic attractions already.

4) There are other places in Yorkshire which seem to have a claim to being ‘home’. And perhaps Northamptonshire does?

5) Ricardians from all over the world are adding their voices to the lobbying for York. I think perhaps they see York as a quaint old place where we’re constantly burying important folks in the Minster, wearing robes and jousting in the streets. This is a 21st century community, our Minster is at the heart of it, and not all of us want a Ricardian shrine in the middle of it.

Where now?

The lobbying for York may be successful. I keep thinking of that flag at half-mast at Buckingham Palace, eventually, after the death of Diana. The most massive and powerful institutions give in if harrassed enough.

Local school pupils have been writing to the Queen. Their opinion is that Leicester is being ‘selfish’. Children in a Leicester primary school might think York is being ‘greedy’. I do.

Politicians have latched on to it as a popular cause. It’s handy for distracting us from the cuts/scandals/etc going on at present affecting the living people in York/Leicester/wherever. Depressing but inevitable.

Hearing that York MP Hugh Bayley had joined the campaign was the final nail in the coffin of my long-dwindling support of the Labour Party. It resulted in a still, quiet, profound moment when I realised that there really isn’t anyone to vote for anymore, next time, next general election. It doesn’t really matter which party anymore, Labour are just as keen to latch onto the apparent appeal of a dead monarch’s bones as the Tories would be. Late in the day, when they’ve assessed first how popular it is.

Interesting outcome, appropriately medieval, having no one to vote for.

The debate looks set to rumble on for months. The burial place is just part of it. There have been calls for a Catholic service, suggestions of a full state funeral, and a petition for a lying in state arrangement. Potential for further massive disagreement over what is appropriate and respectful, isn’t there. I hope everyone who’s lobbying for York is prepared for all that.

Elsewhere on these pages

Initial thoughts on the unseemly wrangle, and in defence of York Minster: York v Leicester: battle for the bones

Thoughts on Leicester, etc: Richard III: Part the Third

And Wishes and white roses: Richard III, again

The post Now is the winter of our discontent … appeared first on York Stories.