Gordons prepares for JR over York burial for Richard III

  • Print
  • Comments (38)

Readers' comments (38)

  • For White Rose - A member of the 'House of York'!!! - A more convincing argument for burial in York might have been to say 'He had a house in York'.....York are simply trying to body snatch for the tourist buck....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dux: Leicester was a diocese from 680 to 870.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I cannot think of one reason why Richard should be reinterred in Leicester. Comments like the one from 'Chris' are pathetic and echo the reasons Leicester are claiming him. He was an anointed King of England, one who has been vilified and lied about for 500 years + surely he deserves to rest in peace now in the place he called 'home' as in a letter to the Mayor of York which he wrote just before his imminent return. He lived most of his life in Yorkshire and was Lord of the North for 12 years. He just happened to die in Leicester.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • However much i dislike the idea of Richard 3 being buried at York on the basis of the massive tourism draw it would be for York I strongly believe that Richard should be buried there. Leicester is not fit for a king and whether you liked him or not he was a (Kings King) dying in battle leading his knights. Secondly he was the legendary Duke of York and his son is buried in the minister and that where he also belongs. My impression id the University of Leicester has railroaded the burial and has not careid out proper consultation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Utterly without merit but evidently Gordons are happy to take these suckers' money. All due legal, religious and archaeological processes have been followed. If someone was to rule that these 15 people should have been consulted then (a) they need to provide genealogical evidence that they are indeed related to Richard, and (b) the other half-million or so people who are equally related to him need to also be consulted.
    I'm glad I don't live in York. The city is fast becoming a laughing stock.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Miles from home I've stopped the car and buried a few Richard iii's in the woods - what's all the fuss about?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Secondly he was the legendary Duke of York..."

    No he wasn't; he was Duke of Gloucester.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well What can we say york calling leicester in a nasty way Not happy today were king will lay but in leicester he will stay

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • God bless Gordons and the descendents of Richard for taking this on. These people are relatives of Richard's through his family.
    Good luck and I hope it works, Richard should be in York Minster.
    Richard spent over half his life in the North of England, Yorkshire in partivular and he regarded it as his home.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Richard III should be buried in London.
    He was a king. He held court in London. Therefore in the absence of any written proof that he wanted otherwise he should be buried in Westminster Abbey.
    Failing that his remains should be buried in Worksop. That is half way between the beautiful vista of Leicester and the modern urban hub that is York.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Didn't Richard III say "Kill all lawyers"?
    Well surely he would have made an exception for Neil Warwick of Dickinson Dees who has penned this Private Eye worthy piece on the subject? http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/business-comment/2013/04/10/what-we-can-learn-from-richard-iii-51140-33146349/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with those who have their doubts about the validity of R3's descendants. But the fact is that this - probably much libelled - king belongs to the North of England - not just the city of York, or at all York, for that matter. I bet you Richard wanted to be buried in Middleham Parish Church, or perhaps Westminster Abbey. Leicester, someone said has chronic want of tourism. If you are ever unlucky enough to visit there, boy, you will glimpse why. We the taxpayers, pay for the University in that town, so, ultimately it is our say alone where King Dick is buried.
    Some have implied that the people of the North let Richard down at Bosworth. I would point out that he was betrayed by the insidious liar and malefactor, Percy of Northumberland, who currently resides on a spit in Beelzebub's Deepest Cellar, joyously placed there by the good people of Thirsk and Northallerton some 500 years ago. Give us back our true, if adopted son, to be buried in the place which he for one loved!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dux needs to read his history books. There was a Christian bishop sitting in Leicester before ever there was one in Norwich, Durham, Salisbury among others. The diocese fell when the danes invaded Mercia causing the saxon bishop of Leicester to flee to Dorchester.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem is that Richard III was a king of England - so in a sense we all have a say in what happens to his remains. I believe the discovery of his remains transcends normal archeological practice. The Ministry of Justice should have intervened and given Parliament, as our representatives, a free vote to decide where and how to rebury the remains. We take care over the remains of soldiers who died in the First World War, why should we not exercise similar care for Richard III? There are a number of choices for a final resting place - in the absence of a definitive instruction from the king - Westminster Abbey (where his wife and successor are buried), St George's Chapel, Windsor (where his brother, Edward IV is buried), Tewksbury Abbey (where his brother, George is buried), York (where his father was executed - and probably his spiritual home) and Leicester (where his remains were found). I support the legal challenge because I think the Ministry of Justice have been cavalier in their approach to the issues involved and they need to (be told to) think again!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This all is such a waste of time and money . Laugh or the stupidity of the situation will make you cry.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have to say that, apart from the first two anonymous comments which are witless, most of these comments are hilarious! I was in favour of the Plantagenet alliance when I first heard this news, but my mind has been changed not being able to work out who they are and by the people pointing out that there is no real evidence Richard wanted to be buried at York. On the other hand, Leicester seems to have been in indecent haste to create opportunities to make money out of him. I agree with Henry VII - create a tomb & memorial at Bosworth where he fell. Shakespeare does indeed have a lot to answer for!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My Wife and I both believe that in lieu of Richard not being able to be buried at Westminster Abbey as a King Of England, that the next best place would be York Minster. During his lifetime he loved the North more than he loved the Midlands or South.
    He was of the House Of York, not Leicester.
    The only association I can think of with Leicester is the proximity to it`s site to his defeat at Bosworth and where he was taken after the battle and after being degraded and dehumanised he was thrown into a grave, probably naked.
    Most of all, as Richard was baptised as a Roman Catholic he has the human right to expect a decent Roman Catholic burial no-matter where he ends up.
    Rather than Cities argue over the place of his burial, potentially for ecconomic reasons, we believe that it should be considered where Richard would have wanted to be buried if it was possible to ask him.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Richard III was Catholic and received a Catholic burial in a Catholic monastery. Why is it now proposed that he have an Anglican re-burial?
    Nobody would suggest that the Queen (Anglican) should have a Catholic burial, so why is the opposite constellation valid and desirable?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (38)