Richard III (1452-1485): Discovery of Remains and Reburial

[AdmirerUS]

As EIIR already pointed out he's had a Catholic Funeral and if they want to bury him with the "majesty" he deserves, they're not going to find anywhere well known like Leicester Cathedral or York Minster as we happen to be a COE country now.

I think this makes the joint COE/RC ceremony very possible. I'm unsure of COE, but Catholics have a funeral mass and a graveside ceremony which can be separated. The graveside ceremony is called the Rite of Committal and is (in my opinion) more obviously Christian than obviously RC. I've also known Catholics who had no graveside rites for one reason or another.

 

[Pranter]

Nooooooooooo! Catholics are not cremated - at least they weren't back then. How could they rise again if they were ashes? Its his beliefs we need to respect, not ours.

ps if they were burnt at the stake as a martyr, that is completely different.

It's been acceptable for Catholics to be cremated for many years now, the only issue is that the ashes may not be scattered, they must be interred.

Don't know about back then...


LaRae

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Dean of York goes to the police over Richard III hate mail - Telegraph

I cant tell you how chuffed I am that remembered it was the Dean! I am of a certain age and this is soooo reassuring!

Also - and is SERIOUS (actually that is EXPENSIVE, as in lawyers) stuff

Gordons prepares for JR over York burial for Richard III | News | The Lawyer

Marvelous!

I'm sending my kids out to the backyard with shovels tomorrow. With any luck Casa de Giraffe was built over a royal ancient Indian burial ground and we can wipe off the bones of some Cherokee prince. Then I'll represent that bones' interest in the fight over where to properly inter him. We can keep this going for years.

Instead of the Trail of Tears, it will be the Trial of Tears.


As for the sticky issue of what to do with what's left of Richard, I completely agree, after reading all these posts over what to do with him, that we should just stick him back under that car park. Just rename the car park "Richard III Car Park" or something equally commemorative.

 

[lady of hay]

Check out theRichardIii society website for the latest info about this

 

[An Ard Ri]

As EIIR already pointed out he's had a Catholic Funeral and if they want to bury him with the "majesty" he deserves, they're not going to find anywhere well known like Leicester Cathedral or York Minster as we happen to be a COE country now.

Are we sure he had a funeral at all in the first place?.
Its possible that his body was just buried and maybe without any ceremony taking place.As the body was found with no sign of a coffin his burial seems to have been hurriedly buried in the choir.

I couldn't find any records or information about a funeral taking place,maybe it was a 'quick prayer service' and not a Requiem Mass .

 

[padams2359]

I don't think HM would have stated that as a fact without knowing, and having been advised on facts surrounding the events unfolding.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt that any body would have been buried inside an abbey without a full mass - wasn't done that way back then.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I doubt that any body would have been buried inside an abbey without a full mass - wasn't done that way back then.

He wasn't even buried in a coffin ,which is unthinkable for a King so his burial was not really how things were done..back then!

 

[Iluvbertie]

If you ever watch Time Team you would know that it wasn't uncommon to bury people in churches not in full coffins but in shrouds or that the coffins disinterated over time while the bones survived.

There is no way that any body would have been interred in a church - and he was - without a full service. The need to do so without a full lead lined coffin wasn't as important as having the service for the safe passage of his soul to the afterlife.

Religious beliefs then were far stronger than today and regardless of who he was he would have had a full service.

 

[An Ard Ri]

If you ever watch Time Team you would know that it wasn't uncommon to bury people in churches not in full coffins but in shrouds or that the coffins disinterated over time while the bones survived.

There is no way that any body would have been interred in a church - and he was - without a full service. The need to do so without a full lead lined coffin wasn't as important as having the service for the safe passage of his soul to the afterlife.

Religious beliefs then were far stronger than today and regardless of who he was he would have had a full service.

Yes,maybe monks or nuns,but Kings did get coffins.Richard III's burial was rushed,his burial was a mystery for a long time.There are no records of a funeral ever taking place so it may have been a simple prayer service or he may well have had a funeral Mass.

If you can find any evidence of either taking place that would be great!

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't need 'evidence' specifically to know the practices and beliefs of the medieval world - no church would bury a person at that time without a proper service. It was too important for the person's soul for them to do otherwise.

Understanding the medieval belief system is all you need to know to know that a proper service would have been held - even if held in the middle of the night - and that the new King wouldn't have been game to try to stop them doing a full service as the complaint to higher authorities would have seen him excommunicated meaning that his victory was meaningless as the people of an excommunicated king didn't have to follow his rules or laws.

Not having a lead line coffin is all that can be proved - not that he didn't have a wooden coffin.

Having spent a large part of my life studying church history and the beliefs system and how that operated at the time there is no doubt that there would have been a full service carried out by the friars for the simply reason that they wouldn't allow a person to be buried in consecrated ground without such a service.

You don't always need specific evidence to know something - sometimes, like this, you need to know the rules that applied to burials in churches and consecrated ground at the time.

 

[Ish]

Yes,maybe monks or nuns,but Kings did get coffins.

While Richard was a King, the person who followed him in the succession was the man who usurped Richard. He had no reason to bury Richard in a lead lined coffin.

 

[LauraS3514]

The archaeologists found no trace of a coffin or shroud - no nails, pins, wood fragments or even ground staining. There would have been something left even after 500 years. The shallow grave was much too small and Richard was squished in naked and half-sitting up (which may have caused his scoliosis to appear even worse than it really was as the body decomposed - just a theory out there on several blogs and websites, no proof) with his hands apparently still tied together from being slung on the back of a packhorse. Maybe his feet were tied too, but since they're gone we don't know. The monks did the best they probably could under the circumstances, placing the King in the Choir, but it looks like he was shoved under the floor as quickly as possible. Committal service - probably; Requiem Mass - unlikely.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The archaeologists found no trace of a coffin or shroud - no nails, pins, wood fragments or even ground staining. There would have been something left even after 500 years. The shallow grave was much too small and Richard was squished in naked and half-sitting up (which may have caused his scoliosis to appear even worse than it really was as the body decomposed - just a theory out there on several blogs and websites, no proof) with his hands apparently still tied together from being slung on the back of a packhorse. Maybe his feet were tied too, but since they're gone we don't know. The monks did the best they probably could under the circumstances, placing the King in the Choir, but it looks like he was shoved under the floor as quickly as possible. Committal service - probably; Requiem Mass - unlikely.

Exactly what I was thinking

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

So they found Richard, what's going to happen to him now? Reburied where he was found or moved to a church? Or in the place where all the other K&Qs are buried whose name has just flown out of my head. It's not like there aren't Catholics in there already.

 

[Artemisia]

The future of Richard III's remains isn't very clear at this moment. Many of English/British Kings and Queens are buried at different places, so there isn't one single burial ground, which would solve the problem. Westminster Abbey isn't being considered.

Leicester - the city he was found in - is the strongest contender for a reburial place (more precisely, the Leicester Cathedral), not least because it was pre-agreed any remains found will remain in the city. However, there is a very strong backing for York to be Richard III's final resting place. Richard was most closely associated with York, he was loved and respected there and of course, he belonged to the House of York. Leicester, on the other hand, is the place he lay abandoned and humiliated, without a proper burial or ceremonies.

I personally strongly support York's candidacy. However, Leicester has much more realistic chances as of now. Have a look at this article - Leicester Virtually Certain to be Richard III’s Burial Place.

Since Richard was a Catholic, wherever he is buried (including the Anglican Leicester Cathedral), it should be in a Catholic rite.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

That's the name I new it started with a "W". Why isn't it being considered?
From what you have just said I am on the side of Leicester simply because that is where he was found. I am not a big advocate of moving somebody's bones so far from where they were discovered, unless its a case like the Romanov bones. I would go for York because that is his family, but I just can't shake feeling he should be put in the place he has been for centuries.

 

[lady of hay]

Unfortunately York has already said that they do not want him. From what I understand the best archeological practice says that remains should be re intered in the nearest consecrated ground to their discovery.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Unfortunately York has already said that they do not want him. From what I understand the best archeological practice says that remains should be re intered in the nearest consecrated ground to their discovery.

York Minster has been diplomatic and said he can be buried at Leicester. They haven't said they don't want him.

 

[EIIR]

I don't need 'evidence' specifically to know the practices and beliefs of the medieval world - no church would bury a person at that time without a proper service. It was too important for the person's soul for them to do otherwise.

Understanding the medieval belief system is all you need to know to know that a proper service would have been held - even if held in the middle of the night - and that the new King wouldn't have been game to try to stop them doing a full service as the complaint to higher authorities would have seen him excommunicated meaning that his victory was meaningless as the people of an excommunicated king didn't have to follow his rules or laws.

Not having a lead line coffin is all that can be proved - not that he didn't have a wooden coffin.

Having spent a large part of my life studying church history and the beliefs system and how that operated at the time there is no doubt that there would have been a full service carried out by the friars for the simply reason that they wouldn't allow a person to be buried in consecrated ground without such a service.

You don't always need specific evidence to know something - sometimes, like this, you need to know the rules that applied to burials in churches and consecrated ground at the time.

I totally agree. Also let's not forget the fact that Richard was anointed as King in a Catholic ceremony using holy oil. There's no way that monks would not give an anointed Catholic king a Catholic burial. It might have happened in secret and in a rush (hence no coffin/shroud), but the idea that the monks would not have given him a Catholic burial is preposterous.

In addition, Henry VII paid for a marble tomb to be erected inside the Greyfriars church for Richard. The dissolution of the monasteries some 40 years or so later will have done away with all that, but he wasn't simply dumped in a hole and forgotten about.

There's no need for a Catholic funeral which would undoubtedly be hijacked by some of the Roman Catholic activists in the UK as they continue their campaign to undermine at every opportunity the Church of England. Like it or not, these issues are still live in the UK. Richard should have a simple re-interment with a simple Christian ceremony. The local Catholic bishop can go to it if he wants to, but it should be left at that.

 

[lady of hay]

York Minster has been diplomatic and said he can be buried at Leicester. They haven't said they don't want him.

As I understand York did not say he could be buried in Leicester. The Ministry of Justice, who granted the exhumation licence gave Leicester the responsibility of making the decision and they decided on Leicester. What is of chief concern now is what kind of memorial Richard is to have.

 

[Spheno]

I totally agree. Also let's not forget the fact that Richard was anointed as King in a Catholic ceremony using holy oil. There's no way that monks would not give an anointed Catholic king a Catholic burial. It might have happened in secret and in a rush (hence no coffin/shroud), but the idea that the monks would not have given him a Catholic burial is preposterous.

In addition, Henry VII paid for a marble tomb to be erected inside the Greyfriars church for Richard. The dissolution of the monasteries some 40 years or so later will have done away with all that, but he wasn't simply dumped in a hole and forgotten about.

There's no need for a Catholic funeral which would undoubtedly be hijacked by some of the Roman Catholic activists in the UK as they continue their campaign to undermine at every opportunity the Church of England. Like it or not, these issues are still live in the UK. Richard should have a simple re-interment with a simple Christian ceremony. The local Catholic bishop can go to it if he wants to, but it should be left at that.

wikipedia:
However, Henry denied any immediate rest for Richard; instead the last Yorkist king's corpse was stripped naked and strapped across a horse. His body was brought to Leicester and openly exhibited in a church to show his death. After two days, the corpse was interred in a plain unmarked tomb, within the church of the Greyfriars.

Bibliography
Ross, Charles (1999) [1981]. Richard III. Yale English Monarchs. New Haven, Connecticut; and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07979-6.
Baldwin, David (1986). "King Richard's Grave in Leicester". Transactions of the LAHS (Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society) (Vol LX-5).

It doesn't look like proper funeral

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I haven't read that York doesn't want him.

Also I am surprised that Henry paid for a tomb for him, makes me go "aww". Then I remember he's kind of the reason for him being dead.

 

[Lumutqueen]

As I understand York did not say he could be buried in Leicester. The Ministry of Justice, who granted the exhumation licence gave Leicester the responsibility of making the decision and they decided on Leicester. What is of chief concern now is what kind of memorial Richard is to have.

My point being York, Richard's "home", did not contest the burial in Leicester. Nobody has ever said the York don't want him. Therefore, nobody put up a fight so the MOJ granted permission to Leicester where he was 'discovered'.

 

[lady of hay]

I had always thought Middle ham was Richards home. The info about the re-interment site was passed on to me by a third party .Obviously not as reliable as the Royal Forums

 

[EIIR]

wikipedia:
However, Henry denied any immediate rest for Richard; instead the last Yorkist king's corpse was stripped naked and strapped across a horse. His body was brought to Leicester and openly exhibited in a church to show his death. After two days, the corpse was interred in a plain unmarked tomb, within the church of the Greyfriars.

Bibliography
Ross, Charles (1999) [1981]. Richard III. Yale English Monarchs. New Haven, Connecticut; and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07979-6.
Baldwin, David (1986). "King Richard's Grave in Leicester". Transactions of the LAHS (Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society) (Vol LX-5).

It doesn't look like proper funeral

For your information:

[SIZE=-1]For the next ten years, Richard III’s burial place remained unmarked. In the summer of 1495, however, King Henry VII took somewhat belated steps to provide a fitting tomb for his late rival. A Nottingham alabasterman, Walter Hylton, was commissioned to erect a monument ‘in the Church of Friers aforeseid’; the budget allowed for this work was £50. No detailed description of the tomb exists, but it was of ‘mingled colour, marble’, with a figure of Richard in alabaster. It bore an inscription recording Henry VII’s generosity in paying for it, and asking for prayers for Richard’s soul, ‘t’atone my crimes, and ease my pains below’. This tomb remained in place in the Greyfriars’ church for the next 43years.[/SIZE]

BBC - Legacies - Myths and Legends - England - Leicester - The fate of Richard III’s body - Article Page 1

Just because no-one wrote down that the normal funeral rites were performed, it doesn't mean that they weren't. For one thing, the monastery's archives will have been destroyed during the dissolution of the monasteries 40 years later. For another, as Iluvbertie pointed out, it would've been considered obvious in those days that they would've been, particularly when the body was buried inside the Greyfriar's Church by the monks themselves, and so not worthy of comment.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

As someone who does not understand genealogy, is it really 100% full proof to compare DNA of 2 people who lived 500 yrs a part? I think it would be more accurate to compare the bones to Edward IV's and see if they are related. But that's from someone who doesn't understand genealogy. During the examination of the Romanov bones I also thought Nicholas's should be compared to his brother who died before him, but in my head comparing them to someone so close to you in relation is more accurate than a living descendant of today.

 

[Artemisia]

In this particular case, it is 100% proof. Scientists have compared DNA sample from the bones with the mitochondrial DNA of Michael Ibsen, a Canadian-born carpenter who currently resides in Britain. Mitochondrial DNA can be inherited solely down the maternal line, and Ibsen is a direct matrilineal descendant of Anne of York, Richard III’s sister.

Now, it is theoretically possible that two people who don't share ancestry (in the last, say 2000 years) do have similar to same mitochondrial DNA, especially if it was a fairly common one for the area or country. However, the DNA test merely collaborated the already very strong evidence that proved the remains were of Richard III. In other words, if we take separately the mitochondrial DNA testing, the burial ground, the facial reconstruction, the physical characteristics, etcetera - none would be a conclusive proof the bones belonged to the last York King. However, all those pieces of evidence together allow identification beyond reasonable doubt.

As for comparing Richard's DNA to Edward IV's, a Royal permission would have been required for that - it is highly unlikely such a permission would have been obtained. In fact, it is virtually certain the request would be denied. An attempt had been made (before Richard's remains were actually found, I believe) to extract a DNA sequence from a preserved hair of Edward IV. Unfortunately, the attempt was unsuccessful because of degradation of the DNA.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Richard III Legal Fight to start next week - article from my local paper.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Letter from Richard III's mother discovered in America!

Letter from Richard III's mother discovered in America | This is Leicestershire