|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Richard III - RIP (almost!)
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
The most up do to date news so far that I can find of the reception into Leicester Cathedral of the remains of King Richard III today.
I thought it was all very well handled, considering there is no precedent for this sort of event. The procession through Leicester was intriguing and even quite moving. I've done a bit of amateur reading on Richard, and am not as convinced as the admirable Philippa Langley that he is the innocent she'd like him to be. But the way both civic and ecclesiastical authorities have responded to the bizaare juxtaposition of having to re-inter a 500+ years dead king in modern times, under the auspices of the Anglican Church, while acknowledging Richard was, of course, a son of the Catholic Church - the only Church around in England at the time - has been fascinating.
All kinds of theological ideas going on! But about the liturgy used, Cardinal Nichol's sermon, the music etc.
The Cardinal's sermon was extremely good, I thought. I liked the music - but I love Herbert Howells anyway. And I think the choice of using compline as the office of reception into church of the deceased worked well, too. What do others think?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
under the auspices of the Anglican Church, while acknowledging Richard was, of course, a son of the Catholic Church - the only Church around in England at the time - has been fascinating.
He was a son of the church of England when it was in communion with Rome. He is buried by the Church of England when it isn't.
[Edit: UBB]
[ 23. March 2015, 02:12: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Therefore part of the bizaare juxtaposition referred to in the OP, I suppose. He was King of the nation whose national Church is now presiding over his re-interment. And yet, certainly, the Anglican Church I referred to in the OP (rather than the 'Church of England') would have been beyond his imagining. As Jon Snow (on Channel 4) with inadvertent ignorance put it, 'he was never head of the Church' - meaning, of course, Supreme Governor.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
I've done a bit of amateur reading on Richard, and am not as convinced as the admirable Philippa Langley that he is the innocent she'd like him to be.
I think it entirely likely that he did kill the Princes. But equally, I think it also likely that he was, to a great extent, the victim of a posthumous smear campaign. No prince who has benefitted from regicide wishes the principle to be widely adopted. I recently read a biography of the Emperor Caligula which argues that although he was, clearly, not a nice person his posthumous reputation derives from the Emperor Claudius wanting people to think that the assassination of an Emperor was justified in his case but not before or since.
The funeral rites looked extremely appropriate and I rather wish my life permitted me to pop up to Leicester to pay my respects.
Incidentally, it will undoubtedly be a future pub quiz question. The reign of most English monarchs involves the funeral of one of their predecessors. Which monarch's reign involved two.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.
Because they were in a car park -- hardly a suitable burial place for a King.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.
Because they were in a car park -- hardly a suitable burial place for a King.
Well, yes and no. The car park is on the site of what used to be a monastery which implies he was given a proper Christian burial in a proper grave which is what makes this entire charade totally ridiculous IMO
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.
Because they turned up under the carpark behind a social services office.
Yes, I've found this moving.
On the vexed question of the little princes, I'm with David Starkey, which is more or less, 'not provable to satisfy a court, but pretty certain he was guilty'. Either he gave the order, or he nodded in a way that those who did the job knew what he was implying.
Without wishing to revive C19 style arguments about church history, organically, the CofE is the descendant of the medieval church. Nobody can say what Richard III might have thought about the Reformation, or which side he would have taken, if he'd lived 45 years later.
It's a change I'm grateful for that has happened in my lifetime that if his bones had been found 50 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that a service might take place with both the Bishop of Leicester and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster taking part, and without an unholy squabble for the bones.
Incidentally, for those who've seen some of the programmes. he is only the most recent English monarch, not British one, to have been killed in battle. James IV of Scotland was killed at Flodden. Unlike Richard III, he's an ancestor of every British monarch since James I (and VI). The most recent British monarch to have led his troops in the field as monarch was George II.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I'm only sorry the entire royal family didn't turn out. It should've been a no-brainer; he was undoubtedly a King of England.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But also possibly a child murderer, that does mess woth protocol a bit - if it had been the remains of King Alfred the Great, I think they might have run to somethin a little more bling, sparkle and nobility.
[ 23. March 2015, 00:22: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But also possibly a child murderer, that does mess woth protocol a bit - if it had been the remains of King Alfred the Great, I think they might have run to somethin a little more bling, sparkle and nobility.
Not to mention that the current Royal Family are not direct descendants of Richard III. I don't see why they should view this as anything particularly special.
[ 23. March 2015, 02:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Richard III:
There's a book called "The Daughter Of Time", by Josephine Tey. (From quote "Truth is the daughter of time".) It deals with whether he really killed the princes.
Re Caligula:
My understanding is that he was insane.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's a change I'm grateful for that has happened in my lifetime that if his bones had been found 50 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that a service might take place with both the Bishop of Leicester and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster taking part, and without an unholy squabble for the bones.
Well said. It's a pity that the organisers did not resist the temptation to have those in supporting parts clad in fifteenth century dress.
Golden Key, The Daughter of Time is a novel which argues that Richard was not responsible for the deaths of the princes. It's many years now since the novel was first published, and in the intervening period there have been many historical works which have argued both for and against the proposition. I think the best answer is that given above, namely not beyond reasonable doubt, but that it's a strong prosecution case. We shall almost certainly never know.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
If his soul has already been commended to God (which it almost certainly has) what is the point of going through this whole rigmarole all over again?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If his soul has already been commended to God (which it almost certainly has) what is the point of going through this whole rigmarole all over again?
There's nothing the British like better than a bit of sentimental royal pageantry. It reminded me, for all the world, of Diana's funeral.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If his soul has already been commended to God (which it almost certainly has) what is the point of going through this whole rigmarole all over again?
I am so glad you asked this - my view entirely.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Was it a full funeral service, fit for a king? Or a service of re-interment, spruced up a bit for the royal element?
There are a range of reasons why a body gets exhumed and reintered. There are times when cemetaries get moved, to make way for redevelopment for example, and it would seem appropriate (especially if there are close relatives still living of those buried there) if there was some form of ritual to accompany that. It wouldn't need to repeat the whole funeral service, but something to show we are handling the remains with due dignity and respect.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's the latter. The various programmes have made it very clear that this is not a funeral.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gee D.--
Yes, I know there've been lots of books since then. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) But fiction can be a fun way to explore ideas.
Re why the exhumation and the funeral:
I don't have any tie to all this. But since R3's location had been unknown, all these years, and he was found under a parking lot, and he was a king, I would think that at least a basic funeral would be in order, even without all the pageantry.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
I suppose this all has the advantage of raising the profile of Leicester Cathedral
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.
Because they were in a car park -- hardly a suitable burial place for a King.
Well, yes and no. The car park is on the site of what used to be a monastery which implies he was given a proper Christian burial in a proper grave which is what makes this entire charade totally ridiculous IMO
Well, mainly what Alan Cresswell said. It's a removal and re-interment of remains. Something that happens more often than we realize in ordinary life.
All over England for example, are former graveyards-turned-parks or car-parks, where 'properly buried' remains have been removed and re-interred elsewhere. And clearing old yards to provide room for newer remains is still a regular practice in some places.
Another slight variation is the practice of having the funeral and cremation (I can't imagine it happening with coffined bodies!) of the deceased but waiting some time, for whatever reason, before the committal, the interment. I once did an interment of ashes twelve years after the funeral had been performed, because the burial plot chosen by the next of kin wasn't 'ready'. They were waiting for a tree that grew over the spot to mature and provide cover, before putting their relative's remains in the ground. The ashes hadn't been buried elsewhere in the meantime, however, simply kept at home somewhere secure.
The special attention in the case of Richard is undoubtedly because:
a) up to the point of examining the remains, nobody could be sure they belonged to Richard;
b) up to the point of disinterring, nobody could be sure they were actually there, because of historical misinformation; and
c) Richard was a king of the country, and a rather spicy one at that.
I suppose one might look at the fancy-dress elements of the event so far - 'knights' on horses, and re-enactment figures doing things contemporaneous to Richard's time, whatever, as a 'charade'. But to me it looks fairly restrained and reverent, as yet, and quite in keeping with the character of the re-interment of the discovered remains of a controversial and important historical royal figure.
Interesting point about the Requiem according to the York rite. I think I remember that being suggested in one of the many debates about what should have been done. But I suppose that would've made it a funeral service.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I suppose this all has the advantage of raising the profile of Leicester Cathedral
Indeed! I half wondered if part of the reasoning behind giving the bones to Leicester was because York didn't really need the boost in tourism and subsequent income!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
All over England for example, are former graveyards-turned-parks or car-parks, where 'properly buried' remains have been removed and re-interred elsewhere. And clearing old yards to provide room for newer remains is still a regular practice in some places.
Yes. Bones from my last church's graveyard were removed and reinterred elsewhere for a new building project (c.1970). They had to get a private Act of Parliament to have it done!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I'm quite sure that part of Leicester's determination to hang onto the remains was the tourist monies. (At least they finally came up with a decent design, rather than just tossing the bones under the pavement.) I think he belonged at York, but Leicester did rise to the occasion.
As far as Richard's alleged villainy goes, I think we have to bear in mind that nobody ever suggested that the princes had been killed until well after Henry Tudor usurped the throne. Richard didn't need to off them; he'd been crowned and recognized as King.
The Tudors, on the other hand, spent the rest of their tenure murdering anyone remotely related to the Plantagenets, including the elderly Lady Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who can't have been much of a threat.
My money's on the usurper for these murders.
As to the ceremony, we have no idea of whether Richard had a proper funeral or not, his naked corpse shoved into a hole too small for him in haste. He was the King of England, and a good one, too, and he deserves the ceremonies he's receiving.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JeffTL
Apprentice
# 16722
|
Posted
I recall something similar a while back with the remains of some pre-Reformation English sailors that had been recovered from a shipwreck, except that they had never been properly buried. If memory serves their funeral wound up being in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, since it's the closest thing still around to what they would have wanted.
Posts: 49 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
As to the ceremony, we have no idea of whether Richard had a proper funeral or not, his naked corpse shoved into a hole too small for him in haste.
Yes, a hastily dug grave that was too small. No shroud or coffin. Contemporary records suggest that the body of Richard was put on public display following the battle. So, probably a bit ripe. Which seems like a good reason to not hang around with the funeral.
But, the grave was inside the church building. Perhaps a quick burial in the graveyard might have taken place with the most perfunctory of funeral services. But, to give his body the honour of resting inside the church building and not hold a decent funeral service seems a bit odd to me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
As to the ceremony, we have no idea of whether Richard had a proper funeral or not, his naked corpse shoved into a hole too small for him in haste. He was the King of England, and a good one, too, and he deserves the ceremonies he's receiving.
Back in Richard's day they didn't really go in for big state funerals. A lot of the "traditional" pageantry we see today surrounding the royal family only goes back to Victorian times.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Back in Richard's day they didn't really go in for big state funerals. A lot of the "traditional" pageantry we see today surrounding the royal family only goes back to Victorian times.
Spike, are you sure of that? It's 200 years later and post Reformation, but what about this? There's a lot of extracts on Youtube. Here's one that has some period instruments.
I agree, though, that a dead usurper would not have been given a state funeral. The assumption from the place where the bones were found was that the friars gave him a discreet but respectful burial.
Rossweisse, the notion that the princes might have been still alive and were only murdered when Henry VII inconveniently discovered they were still around was a bright new theory 50+ years ago but I regret to say is a dud. It was generally assumed on the street both in England and on the continent by 1483 that the princes had been done in.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
The earliest account of rumours of their death was a week after Richard's coronation in 1483, by Mancini, an Italian monk in the entourage of the French ambassador. He was in England at the time of the coronation. Most sources point to their death being a few weeks later but obviously people thought Richard capable of it. Alison Weir's 'The Princes in the Tower' gives a good, unbiased (imo) overview of the various evidence available. She suggests the likeliest date of death as the 3rd September 1483.
I, personally, am of the opinion that as Richard usurped the throne, locked the rightful heir up and his sergeant had the only key to the tower that he is clearly the most likely culprit. As stated above, executing rivals was not unusual for medieval kings.
For me, one of the interesting things is that the children's mother switched sides to support her enemies, the Tudors. That tells me that she didn't think they killed her sons. There was pragmatic reasons to do so, to ensure her daughter's claim, but she obviously did not trust Richard when she hid herself and her children in the sanctuary.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Hear's another vote for Alison Weir's 'Princes in the tower' book. Takes a very good in-depth look at contemporary and slightly later accounts, and deals with them quite fairly, I think.
Should Richard have killed the princes, or ordered their demise in any degree, I still think he was a sufficiently complex character to have been the relatively pious person he's claimed to be by many. Indeed, Weir's work even suggests that he was making genuine efforts through his religious faith to reconcile his conscience to the kingly work of gaining and keeping a throne, and going to war.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Spike quote:
Back in Richard's day they didn't really go in for big state funerals. A lot of the "traditional" pageantry we see today surrounding the royal family only goes back to Victorian times.
Not so. Although buried at Windsor, records show that the funeral of Edward IV was quite grand.
And if you're looking for more, what about the ceremonial that accompanied the death of Eleanor of Castile, wife of Edward I? Quite apart from the Eleanor crosses, there is the fine effigy in Lincoln cathedral (where her viscera are buried), there was the tomb in the Dominican's church at Blackfriars in London (where her heart was buried), and then there was the solemn funeral at Westminster Abbey where the rest of her is entombed (you can still see her tomb there today.
At royal funerals a life-size effigy of the monarch was dressed in robes and placed on top of the coffin as it was carried in procession. Some of these effigies, or parts of them, have survived - its how we know accurately the height and shape of Elizabeth I at the time of her death.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Was that a specifically English custom? Or were effigies a medieval thing?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
More widely used in England than France, but there was certainly an effigy of Charles VI at his funeral in 1422.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
As far as Richard's alleged villainy goes, I think we have to bear in mind that nobody ever suggested that the princes had been killed until well after Henry Tudor usurped the throne. Richard didn't need to off them; he'd been crowned and recognized as King.
The Tudors, on the other hand, spent the rest of their tenure murdering anyone remotely related to the Plantagenets, including the elderly Lady Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, who can't have been much of a threat.
Because, of course, it would have been an entirely safe course of action in England, circa 1484, to wander around the place remarking loudly that nothing much had ever been seen of the late Princes and it seemed quite likely that Richard had bumped them off. And, of course, Richard never had anyone killed without displaying a respect for due process and the course of law which would have warmed the heart of Amnesty International.
quote:
My money's on the usurper for these murders.
As Omar would say: Oh, Indeed!
[ 24. March 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I have been looking without success for the programme of the service. Has anyone found it online?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Will it be broadcast on the BBC, and if so at what time?
(And would it have been a safe thing to wander around the streets accusing Henry Tudor and his mercenary French army of murdering the princes? Perish the thought.)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Channel Four - coverage starts at 10:00: they did all the stuff about the excavation and so they're keeping it as 'theirs' to the end.
I'm told they thought the chances of finding Richard III were non-existent but they backed the original dig thinking it would be a sort of souped-up version in the TimeWatch mould. Now its all gone and grown like Topsy!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Will it be broadcast on the BBC, and if so at what time?
(And would it have been a safe thing to wander around the streets accusing Henry Tudor and his mercenary French army of murdering the princes? Perish the thought.)
Breton, darling, IIRC. Rex Quondam et Futuras and all that.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan Rasch
Shipmate
# 49
|
Posted
Based on my testing here in Boston, it looks like internet access to Channel 4 TV is available only to people with UK internet addresses.
However, there appears to be internet access to BBC Radio Leicester (direct link to player).
So I will be getting to work early Thursday am ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (we need a white rose smilie)
--------------------
* A cyclist on the information bikepath
Posts: 509 | From: Boston, MA USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
If Edward VIII wasn't crowned, he can't really be said to have reigned, no?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
If Edward VIII wasn't crowned, he can't really be said to have reigned, no?
It doesn't work that way. "The king is dead; long live the king."
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The answer is Elizabeth II. Edward VIII's reign commenced with the death of his father, and ceased at his abdication. The funeral of his father, a predecessor, was held in his reign. The reign of George VI commenced with the abdication of his older brother. There was no funeral of a predecessor during his reign. Elizabeth II's reign commenced with the death of her father; his funeral and that of her uncle, both predecessors, were held in her reign. There may be some earlier ones, but too busy with real life to check.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Incidentally, it will undoubtedly be a future pub quiz question. The reign of most English monarchs involves the funeral of one of their predecessors. Which monarch's reign involved two.
Wouldn't that be three--George VI, Edward VIII, and Richard III?
Good spot!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Richard III deserves a state funeral. Remember that when he was buried in 1485 it was the end (?) of a civil war and he lost so interred in a monastary graveyard. Now we have relocated him and he was King of England so deserves a burial as such, with the pomp & circumstance that goes with it.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I found it quite moving when they introduced the member of the royal family who took an active part in the service properly
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
The last person being so titled of course being Richard III.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm told they thought the chances of finding Richard III were non-existent but they backed the original dig thinking it would be a sort of souped-up version in the TimeWatch mould. Now its all gone and grown like Topsy!
If for no other reason - and there are so many reasons to love this story - this is one of the best to be fascinated by how this has all unfolded. I just loved how Philippa Langley felt so sure in her guts that the carpark - even the very space with the big 'R' painted on it! - was the right place to start, with only flimsy evidence to go on.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Incidentally, it will undoubtedly be a future pub quiz question. The reign of most English monarchs involves the funeral of one of their predecessors. Which monarch's reign involved two.
Wouldn't that be three--George VI, Edward VIII, and Richard III?
Good spot!
During lifetime perhaps for George VI and Edward VIII, but not reign. Elizabeth II has had 2 in her reign and 3 in her lifetime - those two, and George V. Or are you going to count a Queen Consort as a monarch.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
