Arguments against tomb don't hold up
It was with surprise that I read of Leicester Cathedral's preference for a slab to mark the final resting place of King Richard III when the large majority have clearly expressed the wish for a proper tomb.
This preference appears to be on the grounds that a "large" tomb would be inappropriate in a "small" cathedral. However, the facts as I see them are these:
-

HOPE: The tomb which was suggested by the Richard III Society
1. The chest tomb proposed by the Richard III Society is not large. Five of them would not equal the floor area of the average small living room. There is also no question of a tomb with any appreciable height.
Any arguments as to space are therefore spurious.
Cheap Van Insurance For 17,18 & 19 Year Old Drivers - Call Insure365 01782 898188, Free Legal Protection Cover Included valued at £25.00!
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Monday, June 24 2013
2. A chest tomb can easily be accommodated in the location preferred by the cathedral without any disturbance to their proper work.
Under their proposed reordering of the cathedral interior this would be more so, not less.
3. The royal tombs at the other provincial cathedrals – Canterbury, Winchester, Gloucester and Worcester – are all chest tombs.
Would it not be demeaning to Leicester and to King Richard if Leicester Cathedral did not follow suit? There is no logical reason why it should not.
4. The chest tomb would be wholly paid for by the Richard III Society. There would be zero expense for the cathedral.
Neither, I am given to believe, would the society, despite having produced an indicative design, wish to dictate over this to the cathedral in any way.
Any arguments as to cost are therefore spurious. We should all be immensely grateful to the Richard III Society for having the vision to work for the rediscovery of King Richard in our city and the practicality to raise the funds for his tomb, towards which Leicester Civic Society has contributed.
5. The cathedral has already said that the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England would not approve a tomb. However if they haven't yet applied, how do they know?
If they have already applied, unofficially, this rather makes a mockery of the consultation process.
If they have done so, how can the commission express an opinion in advance of the consultation?
If it has expressed said opinion, what are its grounds for so doing when the other four provincial cathedrals with royal burials all have proper tombs, which, though erected in past centuries, are presumably approved of by themselves?
It is clear there are no real grounds for opposing a proper tomb, appropriate for the last Plantagenet king of England and the last king of England to die on the field of battle in defence of his crown.
We will work gladly with Leicester Cathedral, Leicester City Council, the Richard III Society and anyone else who is proud of Leicester to achieve this aim.
Stuart Bailey, chairman, Leicester Civic Society.
So, in its wisdom, Leicester Cathedral is proposing to intern Richard III's remains under a slab of stone.
We have been told the discovery of his remains is worth millions of pounds to Leicestershire in tourism creating jobs and so on.
You only have to travel 40 or so miles from Leicester and very few people know where it is – try getting back to Leicester from Birmingham airport.
People ask me what is Leicestershire famous for? Fox hunting – been banned. Pork pies – you can buy them anywhere. Daniel Lambert – no one knows who he is.
Can you imagine Nottingham putting a slab over the remains of Robin Hood, if they found him?
I think not.
Leicester is famous for demolishing anything of historic interest.
You only have to cast your eyes round the city centre and bemoan the loss of all the old black and white timbered buildings.
The public house Richard III spent his last night in, the White Boar Inn, sadly went the same way.
We have one chance only to get this right and put Leicestershire on the world map.
This is not any old pile of bones we are interring, but a former king of England. He is surrounded in so much mystery and intrigue we must give him a burial befitting a king with as much pomp and ceremony as is befitting him.
I ask Sir Peter Soulsby to ensure the wishes of the people are met. If not, let him go to York Minster, where I am sure they will do the right thing by him.
Len Clarke, Croft.




6 Comments
by richardprys
Friday, March 22 2013, 7:14PM
“Clanchief, you've made the claim several times across this site that Richard III has direct descendants alive today, and that one is to be crowned Richard IV. I wonder what on earth you are talking about. Are you perhaps thinking (in a rather confused way) of Perkin Warbeck or Richard of Eastwick? Please enlighten me.”
by CLANCHIEF
Friday, March 22 2013, 4:28PM
“KNIBBSIE: ON THE TOP OF YOUR COMENTS YOU HAVE PUT DOWN I QUOIT. The morality I allude to is that Richard III had no choice in the whereabouts of his burial and his perceived wishes have not been taken into account. NOT QUITE TRUE HE HAS A GRANDSONS AND GRANDAUGHTERS ALIVE TO THIS DAY AND ONE IS TO BE CROWND RICHARD NEVILLE PLANTAGENT WARICK. KING RICHARD THE IV”
by knibbsie
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 4:56PM
“I believe other people have whinged about the buildings thing but that does not concern me - even if Leicester looked like Oxford it wouldn't concern me. The morality I allude to is that Richard III had no choice in the whereabouts of his burial and his perceived wishes have not been taken into account - I do not think Leicester can ride roughshod over that just to make money - he was a human being and deserves better than that. Historically there are categories of people who had no choice of where they were buried - but I think it shows scant respect to put Richard in the same category as convicted felons, Felo de ses and paupers - if it wasn't York I would go to Peterborough - which at least as it's the closest cathedral to his birthplace is better than burying him here.”
by wolfpaw1972
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 4:48PM
“Len also makes the reasonable comment that "the royal tombs at the other provincial cathedrals – Canterbury, Winchester, Gloucester and Worcester – are all chest tombs". This is true, but it's worth remembering that all of those buildings were built as either cathedrals or great monastic abbey churches. Leicester's cathedral is in reality a small parish church and, from an architectural perspective alone, an unsuitable location for a royal tomb. What about Lichfield as an option? (I would suggest Coventry but it has been as thoroughly trashed as Leicester.)”
by wolfpaw1972
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 4:45PM
“I'm sorry that Leicester has demolished all its old buildings but I don't see how you can morally use the remains of a medieval king as a tool for 'righting' that particular wrong.”
by knibbsie
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 8:57AM
“I have to admit that the arguments above are well made as far as they go and if the moral and ethical position was that Richard should be buried in Leicester, then the case for a proper tomb is difficult to argue against - even Richard's enemy Henry VII eventually gave him more than a slab!
However even if the church agreed to a solid gold and diamond-studded tomb, and to a Roman Catholic ceremony to inter the king the moral and ethical position is that 100% Richard would not want to have been buried in Leicester and if his perceived desires (based upon his life and actions) are considered should be buried in York.
I have no doubt that wherever he is buried he will get a Protestant Ceremony (Bear in mind *he* would have considered this heretical and the governor of the C of E is a person descended from his greatest enemy - but not from him. Also if Richard truly believed Elizabeth of York was illegitimate the governor to his view would have a very dubious claim to the throne - perhaps why Lizzie Windsor will not consider his interment in Westminster Abbey with his wife!). I suppose as a Catholic I can live with that as long as there is a Catholic input. We are no longer in the 15th Century!
So to bury him with a heretical ceremony (to him) and in a place he would not have wanted to have been buried is a double whammy and I think wholly unacceptable. BURY HIM IN YORK - as part of the agreement let us insist that he be put in a part of the Minster where no charge is levied - but BURY HIM IN YORK!”