KarenTakeItEasy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Basically why was Richard of YORK buried at Leicester??? It makes no sense AT ALL seeing as the only reason he was there was to fight them.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by KarenTakeItEasy)
Basically why was Richard of YORK buried at Leicester??? It makes no sense AT ALL seeing as the only reason he was there was to fight them.
Medieval kings were buried all over the place, since in the time it would take to transport them back to London they would often get quite smelly. Richard III is just continuing the tradition.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
KarenTakeItEasy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
I understand what you're saying but I don't agree. We're not in Medieval England any more and if he got the choice to buried at York or Leicester wouldn't you think he'd want to be buried in York? And if we're going by tradition here then shouldn't he have been given a Catholic service instead of Protestant seeing as that was what he was.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Why York? He was of the House of York, but that doesn't mean he had any special ties to the city, other than a few years running the north of England on behalf of his brother. You wouldn't say that our present Queen must necessarily be buried in Windsor because of her name, would you?

He was born in Northamptonshire, was raised in London and the Netherlands, and was Duke of Gloucester. His wife is buried in Westminster and his son in Wensleydale. There are plenty of places which have as good as or better claims to him than York, so why not the place he died?

Oh, and by the way, if I recall the service held for him at the weekend was led by a Roman Catholic cardinal.
0
reply
KarenTakeItEasy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-32052800

I don't think it was a Roman Catholic service.
Also, it wasn't just about him, like his family name and heritage would have meant a lot. I understand what you mean and no you're right, I wouldn't expect the Queen to be buried at Windsor but the likelihood is she'll be buried in London.

However, I do believe that yes he was House of York and yes that did mean he had special ties to it. I think it would have meant a hell of a lot to him, it was part of his title after all. Also, the title Duke of Gloucester was bestowed on him after his brother became King whereas he was born into the House of York.


However, I think I do agree with you that he could have been in other places too, such as Westminster seeing as he was King of England. Whichever would be a million times better than being buried at Leicester.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by KarenTakeItEasy)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-32052800

I don't think it was a Roman Catholic service.
Also, it wasn't just about him, like his family name and heritage would have meant a lot. I understand what you mean and no you're right, I wouldn't expect the Queen to be buried at Windsor but the likelihood is she'll be buried in London.

However, I do believe that yes he was House of York and yes that did mean he had special ties to it. I think it would have meant a hell of a lot to him, it was part of his title after all. Also, the title Duke of Gloucester was bestowed on him after his brother became King whereas he was born into the House of York.


However, I think I do agree with you that he could have been in other places too, such as Westminster seeing as he was King of England. Whichever would be a million times better than being buried at Leicester.
Well, perhaps not. But in any case, the Catholicness or otherwise of the service doesn't really matter. Henry VIII didn't create the Church of England, he simply declared its independence from Rome, so it could be argued that Richard III was as much CoE as he was Catholic.

It was called the House of York because one of his ancestors was created Duke of York, but that ancestor didn't have much to do with the city either. We may never know what Richard actually thought of York, but I'm not convinced that he would be so attached to what was ultimately nothing more than a name.

Westminster probably is indeed a more prestigious place to be buried. However, there are lots of kings in Westminster and none in Leicester until now, so you could say that he's actually getting more attention this way.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Dilmurod Dilmu
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
They should've gave his remains to the remaining members of his family line.
0
reply
gordonbennetton
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Richard iii probably has many thousands of descendants. Should everyone of them be able to contest where he should be buried?
1
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by gordonbennetton)
Richard iii probably has many thousands of descendants. Should everyone of them be able to contest where he should be buried?
Actually, he probably has millions of them.

I agree that Richard should have been buried at York. He was a Northerner at heart and really had nothing to do with Leicester while alive.
1
reply
miguapa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
so some King who lived/died centuries ago gets all this fanfare. Why? He wasn't even a King of note, not like Edward Longshanks, William I, Alfred the Great, Athelstan, or Henry I. These medieval Kings actually did stuff of importance. Even King John did technically and he's considered one of the ****tiest English/British monarchs ever.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by miguapa)
so some King who lived/died centuries ago gets all this fanfare. Why? He wasn't even a King of note, not like Edward Longshanks, William I, Alfred the Great, Athelstan, or Henry I. These medieval Kings actually did stuff of importance. Even King John did technically and he's considered one of the ****tiest English/British monarchs ever.
Richard introduced important legal reforms and the concept of bail to England. Character-wise he is also one of our most interesting and intriguing kings.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (114)
66.28%
No I haven't decided yet (35)
20.35%
Yes but I might change my mind (23)
13.37%

Watched Threads

View All