Ship of Fools: Richard III

Thread: Richard III - RIP (almost!) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030348

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I suppose if we were going to be historically accurate, Richard III should receive a requiem Mass according to the York rite?

http://www.anglicanhistory.org/liturgy/yorkmissal.pdf

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not followed this story enough to understand why his remains were removed from where they were interred.

His remains were discovered under a parking lot.

Some may think that is where he belongs.
[Biased]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

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. ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It's the latter. The various programmes have made it very clear that this is not a funeral.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D.--

Yes, I know there've been lots of books since then. [Smile]

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.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I suppose this all has the advantage of raising the profile of Leicester Cathedral

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Was that a specifically English custom? Or were effigies a medieval thing?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

More widely used in England than France, but there was certainly an effigy of Charles VI at his funeral in 1422.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have been looking without success for the programme of the service. Has anyone found it online?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

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.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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!

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Joan Rasch (# 49) on :

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]

(we need a white rose smilie)

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

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?

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

If Edward VIII wasn't crowned, he can't really be said to have reigned, no?

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

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

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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!

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm not sure what you mean, Gee D.

Elizabeth II became Queen at the moment her father, George VI died. She may not have been anointed and crowned at that stage - but if you only count someone as a monarch if they've been through the full coronation ritual then Edward VIII was never kind, notwithstanding the well-known newsreel of him watching his own proclamation, accompanied by Mrs Simpson.

The two queens consort to be buried during Elizabeth II's reign are Queen Mary and her own mother. She herself is not a queen consort but a regnant queen.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Even this colonial is well aware of the difference between a Queen Regnant (eg both Elizabeths) and a Queen Consort (eg Mary, wife of George V).

The question Callan asked was The reign of most English monarchs involves the funeral of one of their predecessors. Which monarch's reign involved two? At least 1 answer to that is Elizabeth II. Her reign commenced when George VI died, not when she was crowned and anointed, and his funeral was within her reign. Callan's post recognises that this will be the most common occurrence. Also within her reign was the funeral of Edward VIII - whose reign had commenced when George V died and ended upon his abdication. Both George VI and Edward VIII were among HM's predecessors. Of course, only George VI was an ancestor, but that was not Callan's question.

There may be earlier monarchs who fill the criteria.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There were two deceased monarchs buried in William III's reign. One was Mary II who died in 1694. She was joint monarch with himself, and so not his predecessor. The other was James II who died in exile near Paris in 1701. Mary's funeral was a big occasion. Obviously, William would not have attended James's funeral.

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have been looking without success for the programme of the service. Has anyone found it online?

Not sure if this will work where you are, or if this is what you're looking for, but hopefully here is a description of the service with pictures and the full text of the eulogy and sermon (both of which I thought were terrific). Clicking on the picture of the service booklets should get you PDFs of the order for the reinterment.

[ 27. March 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

And it dawns on me that of course it was two days ago you were asking! [Disappointed]

I hope you managed to find it in time, or if not that the link is of interest.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
And it dawns on me that of course it was two days ago you were asking! I hope you managed to find it in time, or if not that the link is of interest.

Like Richard himself, the text is not time-sensitive.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Mr Marten and I returned from Leicester yesterday, so I have only just found these threads about Richard.

We are both members of the Richard III Society, were fortunate enough to have our names drawn in the Society ballot and so were present in the Cathedral for the Reinterment.

I am not here going into whether or not Richard was a murderer (though I do not believe there is enough evidence to say that the Princes were killed by *anyone*, let alone Richard - indeed there is some evidence that at least one of them lived on) but here are some of my impressions of the week:

I was surprised and greatly encouraged by the thousands of people queuing up to view his coffin over the three days' lying-in-repose. We joined the queue on Tuesday morning and only waited for a brief hour before going in. We then hung around for the 1pm Eucharist, so had another opportunity to go in, and also attended Vespers later on, which was sung by the Dominicans of Holy Cross Priory.

Richard's statue was festooned with white roses, and there was an air of excitement and anticipation during the week. The Reinterment service was simple and moving and the Cathedral choir sang beautifully. I felt that Richard's humanity as a child of God was emphasised as well as his Kingship. He was not a devil nor a plaster saint, but a human being as we all are, and his record as king shows his concern for justice and for the common good. Among other things he promoted and protected English trade, and had the laws written in English for the first time. He protected the poor from corrupt officials and extended the use of bail for persons suspected of felony.

Not bad going for the brief two years of his reign. And as York City Records noted when hearing of his death: ''King Richard...late mercifully reigning upon us, was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city.''

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
We are both members of the Richard III Society, were fortunate enough to have our names drawn in the Society ballot and so were present in the Cathedral for that he Reinterment.

(Snip)

And as York City Records noted when hearing of his death: ''King Richard...late mercifully reigning upon us, was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city.''

I hope that the service lived up to its billing (and that Mr Cumberbatch's appearance was equally thrilling!)

Howeve, I'm not sure that York's comments can be taken as a disinterested report - the city was hardly likely to welcome the accession of a Tudor/Lancastrian king and so would have been keen to keep the memory of Richard a good one.

I did note the use of the correct title of the late King during Sunday's reception service:
"Richard, by the Grace of God King of England and France, Lord of Ireland"
(I expect there were a few other titles left out for the sake of economy and length of the service!)

Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :

If anyone still wants to see the Orders of Service for the three main ceremonies, they are available online and I have linked to each: the Reception of the body and Compline, the Re-interment and Service of Reveal of the Tomb

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Thank you for that, Boadicea Trott - it's a great pity though that they have in all the booklets consistently mistyped Richard's birthday as 3 May, when it was 2 October! As well as the typo that he was 17 in 1459 instead of 7...

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Even this colonial is well aware of the di
The question Callan asked was The reign of most English monarchs involves the funeral of one of their predecessors. Which monarch's reign involved two?
...There may be earlier monarchs who fill the criteria.

James VI would be another solution (Mary Stuart &Elizabeth Tudor though at that point there's probably loads) though a bit of a cheat.

Mary Tudor might be another real one? (Edward&LJG) And possibly there's something with Maud&Stephen.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The obvious one is William III. The William of William and Mary with James I and Mary II(his wife) both dying in his reign.

By the way Elizabeth II does not count this was a re-internment not a funeral. The Franciscans would have done the original funeral mass when burying him in consecrated ground within their house.

Jengie

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

/pedant alert/

I think Jengie Jon means James II (died 1701).......

Ian J.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

And I think she means 're-interment' rather than 're-internment'

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The obvious one is William III. The William of William and Mary with James I and Mary II(his wife) both dying in his reign.

By the way Elizabeth II does not count this was a re-internment not a funeral. The Franciscans would have done the original funeral mass when burying him in consecrated ground within their house.

Jengie

But going back to Callan's criteria, Mary would not have been a predecessor of William - they acceded to the throne together.

As I have said before, Elizabeth II does at first glance appear satisfy them, with George VI and Edward VIII having their funerals in her reign.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

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?

I'm pretty sure the answer to Callan's question is Queen Elizabeth II, who experienced the burial of her father, and of Richard III.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though the recent ceremony for Richard III was not a funeral, but a re-interment.

So, though the current queen Elizabeth would (it appears) be the correct answer the way to trick the pub-quizzers is for full marks to be awarded with correctly naming the predecessors.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Rev per Minute:

quote:
Howeve, I'm not sure that York's comments can be taken as a disinterested report - the city was hardly likely to welcome the accession of a Tudor/Lancastrian king...

Just after the king has been killed in battle, when the Lancastrian usurper has attempted to have everyone who fought for Richard at Bosworth automatically declared traitors (and therefore liable to be hung, drawn and quartered) is precisely the time when a statement of support (for the dead king) is most likely to be disinterested.

It would have been far more prudent for them to keep their heads down and say nothing. Instead, they made a public record of their grief.

I'm not a member of the Richard III society, but suggesting that the City of York had their eye on the main chance when making that statement is a gross distortion of the facts.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0