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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Oh, those Stanleys, hugging the sidelines watching the way the Battle of Bosworth turned and throwing their forces behind the winning side which was Henry Tudor's. What's that adage? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I think Richard kept them a little bit too close with disastrous results, knowing that they were capable of betrayal.
 
Sigh.:bang: Richard III was no more a hunchback than Princess Eugenie of York, Elizabeth Taylor, Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. He had scoliosis and unless you saw him shirtless you would have hardly noticed. He was also a notable and formidable warrior both on horseback and on foot - with the heavy battle-axe his weapon of choice. Even his enemies recognized that. No "cripple" he. BTW, I have scoliosis too and no one has noticed unless or until I've said something.

And as for the parasites, well, I'm pretty sure most people - rich or poor - in the 15th Century had more wildlife following them around (internally or externally) than most of us would ever want to know about. :lol: We just haven't had the opportunity to study their remains in such depth.
 
Last edited:
Ugh! I'll bet he thought Henry Tudor was his only problem. ;)
 
Last edited:
The intestinal parasites of King Richard III

The intestinal parasites of King Richard III
If you read the actual article in the Lancet and not the summaries and quotations in other publications, you are told that almost everyone, rich or poor, in the 15th Century had multiple parasites: roundworm, tapeworm, liver flukes, lice, etc. Richard III was actually rather unique in that he ONLY had trichinosis (roundworm). Even today, an estimated 25% of the world's population has intestinal parasites, and not all of them live in third-world conditions. ;)
 
My personal opinion is that he should be buried in York, where he wished to be, and with a full Catholic funeral mass, at that. Whatever he was, Richard was England’s anointed king - anointed and crowned King at a grand, solemn and very well-attended ceremony at Westminster Abbey on July 6 1483, and he was of course a Catholic. He was also, in fact, austerely religious, a public benefactor and protector of the Church, a founder of charities, who throughout his life upheld a strict code of sexual morality, in marked contrast to many of his fellow courtiers. He was also an extremely popular King who some dearly loved; the preferences, then, of the large number of his collateral descendents should be respected, just as he respected others' wishes and opinions.

However, it seems likely that he will be buried in Leicester and according to the current formal religious rites of the Anglican Church. Whatever the final decision I hope that he is interred with full regal honours and as soon as possible to mitigate any further fruitless controversy attending the dignity of this good man, particularly as he wasn't only killed, he was brutalised in quite horrific ways and his body forced into a hole in the ground not large enough to accommodate it. This last is unheard of treatment of a King defeated in battle almost everywhere in the world, ever.
I agree with you totally. He would have the dignity that wasn´t accorded to him when he died and was buried ina hole.
 
Just to throw another hat into the ring as it were, I have it on good authority that the exhumation licence was applied and paid for by Phillipa Langley :)
 
Do the 'modern Brits' really care for all this reburial stuff?
How serious and imporatant it will be when its carried out?
Will it be a National Service with the Prime Minister and Prince of Wales is attendance?
 
Do the 'modern Brits' really care for all this reburial stuff?
How serious and imporatant it will be when its carried out?
Will it be a National Service with the Prime Minister and Prince of Wales is attendance?

I'm not from the UK but I can almost guarantee that Richard III's reburial will not be a state occasion. I do think it'll be done as a proper burial and a memorial to a king though. I've no clue how interested Charles or any royal other than the Duke of Gloucester would attend. The Duke would most likely attend as he is involved in the Richard III Society.
 
Whenever the subject arises [which is reasonably often here] people are principally concerned about costs [unsurprisingly given we are just emerging from a recession].
Question people further and many are 'pro' an interment in York, and most [regardless of their religion or lack of one] are unhappy with the idea that Richard is likely to be laid to rest in a 'wishy washy' ecumenical ceremony that he would not recognise. This will be cobbled together to satisfy the 'multicultural' nature of what his country has become. [Leicester is widely expected to be the first UK city with a Muslim majority].
Many people feel that the very least we can do for one of our ANOINTED kings is to lay him to rest in Catholic consecrated soil, with Catholic rites and ceremony he would recognise !
 
Whenever the subject arises [which is reasonably often here] people are principally concerned about costs [unsurprisingly given we are just emerging from a recession].
Question people further and many are 'pro' an interment in York, and most [regardless of their religion or lack of one] are unhappy with the idea that Richard is likely to be laid to rest in a 'wishy washy' ecumenical ceremony that he would not recognise. This will be cobbled together to satisfy the 'multicultural' nature of what his country has become. [Leicester is widely expected to be the first UK city with a Muslim majority].
Many people feel that the very least we can do for one of our ANOINTED kings is to lay him to rest in Catholic consecrated soil, with Catholic rites and ceremony he would recognise !

I still think it would be a marvelous idea to do a historical re-enactment of what a proper burial for a king of his time would be like. IIRC, during Richard's lifetime, the Sarum Rite was primarily used.

From Wikipedia:

"The Sarum Rite (more properly called the Use of Salisbury) was a variant ("use") of the Roman Rite widely used for the ordering of Christian public worship, including the Mass and the Divine Office. It was established by Saint Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury in the 11th Century[1] and was originally the local form used in the Cathedral and Diocese of Salisbury; it later became prevalent throughout southern England and came to be used throughout most of England, Wales, Ireland and later Scotland until the reign of Queen Mary.[2] Although abandoned after the 16th century, it was also a notable influence on the pattern of Anglican liturgy represented in the Book of Common Prayer. Occasional interest in and attempts at restoration of the liturgy by Anglicans and Roman Catholics have not produced a general revival, however."

I don't see what the big deal would be if they used the rite of his time.

As I see it, an re-enactment would not only be historically accurate but could be a special event that people might want to participate in and/or attend.

But. then again, if it was too historically accurate, unfortunate Richard would be once again buried somewhere where in another 500 years could be a spaceport that needed tearing up. :ohmy:

OK.. that's enough of my rambling for the day.
 
Why exactly can't Richard be buried in WMA? He was a king at least up until the day before the Battle of Bosworth. ;)

As for Richard being legitimate king and having no political advantage in killing the Princes, aren't there many Kings of England who were legitimately King yet still were overthrown?
 
Last edited:
Why exactly can't Richard be buried in WMA?

WMA - I assume you mean Westminster Abbey - two reasons - one it is full and two The Queen would have to give her consent as it is a 'royal peculiar' and her position comes from her descent from Henry VII not Richard III.

But the main reason the Abbey is full and there is simply no room for another royal burial there.
 
Are George VI and Elizabeth in there? Where is the Queen planning on being buried? And after 400yrs does it really matter that Elizabeth isn't descended from him? It's not like he's James II
 
George VI and Queen Elizabeth, are in the George VI chapel in St Georges which was built in 1952. It is also where QEII and Philip, Charles and Camilla will be buried as they built it large enough for 6 coffins. It is also why Margaret was cremated, so she could be buried with her parents.

To Elizabeth that line of descent may be very important - we don't know but as her claim comes from that descent then it may be important to her. Like James II, Richard III was overthrown and her claim comes from her descent from the earlier Stuarts whose claim comes from Henry VII so it could be very important to her. Either way she has to give permission for Westminster Abbey which is now a CoE church and full.

The last British monarch buried in Westminster Abbey is George II which all since, except Victoria and Edward VIII at St George's. Victoria and Edward VIII are in the Mausoleum at Frogmore built for Prince Albert.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, I didn't know it was already full. I alway wondered what would happen if it got full.
OTH Good GAWD Richard III was good looking.

I would hope that something from 500yrs ago is of no concern to the Queen. It's not like somebody is going to pop up to take her throne. Henry won the battle fair and square one king was dead a new one was made. But Richard was King for 2yrs.
How would this work, put him in with Anne Neville.
 
Last edited:
No one is quite sure where in the Abbey Anne is buried. I hear on the news that Leicester Cathedral are releasing their plans for the re internment. Given that we do not as yet have the results of the judicial review, this can be seen as being both disrespectful of the authority of that body, and shows contempt for what that decision may be. Possibly the best solution would be to re-inter the bones at Fotheringhay , which was the family burial ground of the Yorks.
 
Either way she has to give permission for Westminster Abbey which is now a CoE church and full.

It's always said that the Abbey is full, but every time I've been there I see lots of places where they could fit a tomb.

(I've always thought it was a pity that Diana wasn't placed there, so people could visit the site conveniently; I don't believe she'd have wished to be buried way out in the country all alone).
 
The place is a church and needs spaces for people to actually worship. The crypt is full and the upper levels itself is also packed - it is hard enough to fit in a lot of people for a service.

I have been there many times and find it hard enough to get around know. There is no room for any more graves and also to allow the major reason for the Abbey's existence - church services in the main Abbey itself or in the various chapels.
 
Still think they should just put him back where they found him with a blue plaque to mark the spot and be done with it.
 
What is going on? Will the re-burial ever take place? Any idea how long it may take? Weeks/months? Isnt it the PM who has the final call regarding the scale of ceremonies to be held in this regard..Do the people in Parliament/Whitehall have even the slightest idea/interest about all this?
 
As there is now a judicial review as to where he is to be reburied it could take years as no doubt whatever decision the court makes there will be an appeal etc.

Yes the government could have a say if it is to be a state occasion but if it is to be low-key then it could be paid for by the church where he is to be buried or the university that dug him up etc.
 
The future Richard III was born on this day,2nd of October 1452.


427px-King_Richard_III.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom