King buried with honour whatever form the tomb
In the light of various comments made in the Mercury (Mailbox, March 18), I would like to restate the position of Leicester Cathedral.
We have issued a brief for the architects to use in order to produce a design for a tomb for King Richard III, in the context of Leicester Cathedral and the future reordering of the building for the benefit of all who visit, both tourists and worshippers.
No decision has yet been made about the design of the proposed tomb. That is for the architects, as experts in the way buildings and their contents are designed to meet specific needs, to work on over the coming weeks.
The suggestion that a ledger stone of the highest quality material, employing the very best British craftsmanship and situated in the central, most honoured and significant part of the cathedral (the choir), is belittling to King Richard III is hard to understand.
Free Magic Eye With Every Sky TV Link Installation (just £50!)
View detailsMagic Eye allows you to watch and control your Sky box from another TV in the house! Watch sky in the bedroom or kitchen with this ingenious device!
Terms: Please quote 'this is Leicestershire' when placing your order. Call now for full terms and conditions.
Contact: 07554388174
Valid until: Sunday, September 06 2015
Many of our greatest monarchs lie in tombs marked in a similar way, including William I and our last monarch, George VI. There is also the much-respected tomb of the Unkown Warrior in Westminster Abbey.
No-one suggests these tomb designs are "disrespectful".
Polls run without our participation about whether there should be a "tomb or a slab" are worded in an unfortunate way.
There will definitely be a tomb, where the body of Richard III will be reinterred. It is the design of the tomb that has yet to be decided.
The term "slab" to denote the final marker, should it be a ledger stone, is clearly perjorative.
The cathedral is working closely with the university and city council and consulting others, including representatives of the Richard III Society, who are involved in the planning for the reinterment.
I hope the people of Leicester will support the cathedral as it works hard to ensure that the remains of King Richard, which have lain within its parish for over 520 years, are buried with honour and respect in what will be his final resting place.
Barry Naylor, acting dean of Leicester Cathedral.
23 Comments
View all
by Astropoet
Wednesday, April 03 2013, 11:26PM
“Mr Naylor, let me try to clarify this for you. People think that a slab or a ledger stone will mean that people can walk over Richard's grave or indeed, as you use the cathedral for other functions than worship, have dinner over, or buy stuff from a 'flea market' over. Can you address those concerns? And if no-one can walk over the tomb, what is the difference floor space wise from having a raised tomb (like the one the RIII society commissioned) versus a slab/ledger stone?”
by knibbsie
Friday, March 22 2013, 9:58AM
“I have of course said clearly that I do not believe either cities motivation is monocausal but that the chances are for the reasons given that Leicester's is more money-motivated than Yorks! I don't think the local "nationalism" you allude to is an excuse for ignoring the wishes of the dead either and still leaves Leicester as the immoral, unethical "Burke and Hare" city of 2013!”
by knibbsie
Friday, March 22 2013, 9:48AM
“So local "nationalism" is somehow better than money-lust?”
by zygote3
Thursday, March 21 2013, 7:59PM
“"For all these reasons I think Leicester's attitude is immoral and unethical and more so than York's"
Still here? You seem to think either a city can have a motivation, or that all citizens of a city have a coherent motivation? I imagine most people of either city don't really give a monkeys about a living monarch, let alone one dead for five centuries. But they might find the history interesting, and if it brings in some extra visitors, then, think its a good thing for their locality.”
by zygote3
Thursday, March 21 2013, 7:58PM
“"For all these reasons I think Leicester's attitude is immoral and unethical and more so than York's"
Still here? You seem to think either a city can have a motivation, or that all citizens of a city have a coherent motivation? I imagine most people of either city don't really give a monkeys about a living monarch, let alone one dead for five centuries. But they might find the history interesting, and if it brings in some extra visitors, then, think its a good thing for their locality.”
by Rockhopper
Thursday, March 21 2013, 4:12PM
“"Lay my body where you will, and be not anxious about it. This only I beseech you, remember me at the alter of God, wherever you are". You'll find those words in York Minster remembering women who gave their lives in war. Very apt in this situation, I think.”
by knibbsie
Thursday, March 21 2013, 10:53AM
“Going onto your points:-
Buying Human Beings is immoral and unethical - the purchase of human remains is immoral and unethical. I cannot believe that anyone in Leicester truly believes that Richard would have wanted to have been buried in Leicester (there is not even a 1% chance of that) Conversely there is an argument (based upon his life) that he would have wanted to be buried in York - admittably not a 100% probability - he is dead for God's sake. On a balance of probability as Leicester has no argument but York does then the chances are that Leicester is more likely to be motivated by money-lust. Lots of people on these blogs keep on going on about how much it cost to dig him up and who contributed and therefore fall into a trap of their own creation. I personally find their comments sickening (and also comments such as "Finders Keepers" - evidently Richard is the equivalent of a Five Pound Note!) I also think money lust is immoral and unethical (that is perhaps more subjective than the others). Also Kant's golden rule is operative here because once we start ignoring the wishes of the dead then we may open the floodgates later on. For all these reasons I think Leicester's attitude is immoral and unethical and more so than York's”
by LikeItaLot
Thursday, March 21 2013, 9:34AM
“I am fully aware of the meaning of the words I used and moral philosophy is no longer used to describe ethics since the early seventies in universities, though Roman Catholic seminaries do still sometimes. I am professionaly more than qualified to use big or small words and I do so with reason, so do not patronise please. I using them I gave the coutesy that you understand them.
So let us us put it in a question form. What are the ethical or moral issues here? Is it the disposal of human remains, if so then that is granted in terms of say reverance. But to employ those terms because of argument over where does not qualify”
by knibbsie
Thursday, March 21 2013, 8:39AM
“AlisonMary - I agree that was bilge - my general statement on the money aspect stands though. Likelalot - so it's a category mistake which means that neither immoral or unethical are possible in philosophical terms? However as ethics is also named "moral philosophy" you are speaking absolute tosh aren't you - using big words to try and convince people you have an argument!”
by AlisonMary
Wednesday, March 20 2013, 5:03PM
“Sorry knibbsie - my post was for scandinavianw who claimed that 'Leicester forgot about Richard III for 527 years and contributed no money towards Philipa Langleys dig, whatever money was needed was raised by Philipa from other Richard III Society members' - which is, of course, utter bilge.”