July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617181920 2122
23242526272829
3031     

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 06:20 pm
I draw to your hopeful attention an epetition asking the government to lay Richard III (newly discovered under a car park etc, etc) to rest in York Minster, rather than in Leicester.

I view York as a far more fitting place for him than Leicester, with which place he had little to do in life.
Tags:
Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 09:13 pm (UTC)
I do sympathise with the idea that York's more suitable, but it seems a little harsh on Leicester, which is perhaps not as well-endowed with landmarks and attractions as York. And he has been there all this time.
Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 09:35 pm (UTC)
There's already a statue of him there, being as it's the largest close-ish town to Bosworth Field (assuming that's still the place most people assume it to be!). I agree, York has a better claim.
Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 09:20 pm (UTC)
Can't sign, alas, as I'm neither a resident nor a citizen :/

I do wish to know, though, why there are talks of having him buried in the rites of the CoE, which was founded after his death by the son of the man who killed him. The man was a devout Catholic, it goes without saying that the burial mass should be Catholic. (I have no particular objection to the place itself being CoE, though I'd be hard-pressed to explain the double standard.)
Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 10:34 pm (UTC)
I wish they would attempt to reproduce a 15th century reburial/requiem. (And it should at least be in Latin.)
Wednesday, February 6th, 2013 08:07 am (UTC)
I'm not so sure. He married a close relative without bothering to get a dispensation (unlike his brother) and owned a Bible in English. If he had lived, the Reformation might even have come earlier, for better reasons.
Wednesday, February 6th, 2013 01:27 pm (UTC)
I don't think we can read too much into possession of a bible in English, in practice they seem to have circulated comparatively widely at the time without too comment (even though they almost certainly derived from Wycliffe's 1st translation - they were ok so long as they purported to be a translation made before 1408, which, of course, they all so purported). In 1528 Thomas More (writing against Tyndale's assertion that the church wouldn't allow an English bible in any man's hand) said that if that were true he agreed it was wrong but that he had "seen and can show you bibles fair and old written in English which have been known and seen by the bishop of the diocese and left in laymen's hands, and women's too, such as he knew for good and catholic folk that used it with devotion and soberness".

According to the contemporary chronicler John Rous Richard had a particular name even in his own age for endowing chantry chapels and colleges of priests. One modern historian described it as an obsession, which doesn't easily fit with radically reforming tendencies. His sister Margaret of Burgundy was chummy with the Low Countries reformers.
Wednesday, February 6th, 2013 01:44 am (UTC)
I'm CoE, not Catholic, and even *I* think it makes no sense for him to be buried using Henry VIII's faith.