Time to step up to status that history has given us
It is with some consternation that I read ("Richard III: Tomb design does not meet Leicester Cathedral's criteria", "Richard III: Stone slab to mark final resting place of king, says Leicester Cathedral") about a seeming dispute between Leicester Cathedral and the Richard III Society as to the nature of Richard's proposed tomb.
At a time when we are having to fight tooth and nail (not to mention the rest of him) in Parliament and the press to retain Richard's body in Leicester, this new squabble cannot possibly aid our cause.
The fact is we are proposing to inter the body of a former King of England in our cathedral.
It was the single-minded determination of the Richard III Society and Philippa Langley, in particular, to restore Richard's reputation and legacy that resulted in his body being found in the first place.
Meetthelenders.co.uk has a choice of payday loan companies all in one convenient place. Visit our website TODAY
Terms: Please click through to website for details
Contact: 0115 8962299
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Surely we cannot now expect them to settle for anything less than the memorial they feel is befitting of a king.
If they don't feel that this can be achieved in Leicester or we put too many obstacles in their way, they will start to look elsewhere. We know how keen York is to get its hands on him.
The fact is, we as a city have very little to show for our Richard III connection. Besides the Guildhall, there is next to nothing medieval to see or to capture the imagination.
I have lived here all my life and still haven't found anything resembling a castle.
Bosworth is miles away and currently very difficult to get to.
Yes, there will be a new visitor centre/museum, but what people will flock to is the body itself and when that is in the ground, the tomb/monument will be the long-term and lasting attraction.
A slab on the cathedral floor will not suffice.
This is an unprecedented time in our history. We are set to be one of the few cities outside of London that is the resting place of a monarch.
It is time to step up to the status that history has accorded us.
Yes, we're not used to being "on the map" but let's have confidence (something we typically lack as a city) and build something worth coming to see. We've got a king of England!
If we don't buck our ideas up, we'll lose him.
Nigel Underwood, Leicester.
In my view, there is one overwhelming reason why Richard III should have a tomb rather than a slab in the floor at Leicester Cathedral and that is his dignity.
That poor man has been walked over and parked on for 500 years, a disrespect that ordinary people in ordinary cemeteries are spared.
People prefer to walk around graves, not knowingly over them, and, personally, I have always felt uncomfortable doing so in churches where they are in aisles and unavoidable.
Yes, the memorial's appearance within the cathedral matters, but I really hope the Church authorities will value human decency at least as highly.
Please don't put him back under people's feet.
Helena Edwards, Birstall.
here we are again. In survey after survey, we're asked our opinion about one issue or another only to find that those in power refuse to accept what we say anyway and do just what they wanted to do in the first place.
Surely the former king of England, the last one to die in battle, deserves better than an old slab.
I hear Jewsons does a good line in different sorts.
Wayne Manship, Leicester.
After my initial excitement upon hearing the news of the discovery of the remains of King Richard III, I supported the Leicester Cathedral reburial.
This was further enhanced by the proposed design of a tomb by the Richard III Society.
In the background to these events have been the claims of York to the remains.
After the recent brief from Leicester Cathedral to its architect for a slab in the floor, and the constant opportunistic lime-lighting of events by the city mayor, I no longer think Leicester is up to the job.
I'm sure York is better suited to showing respect to a king of the realm.
There is still time to get it right in Leicester.
The whole world is watching you!
Tony Jarram, Loughborough.
I do not know who to write to to object to Leicester Cathedral's plan to bury Richard III under a stone. This is appalling.
He was a monarch and should have a proper, substantial tomb.
I know others feel the same way. Do you know what can be done to express our objection and press for an appropriate tomb?
G Baron, Leicester.
If Leicester Cathedral seeks to deny Richard III a tomb fit for a king, perhaps his final resting place should be elsewhere after all.
Kevin McShane, Leicester.
10 Comments
by richardprys
Friday, March 22 2013, 7:01PM
“Why a Dominican Priory? The House of York had some links with the Franciscans.
Wouldn't a priory church mean people couldn't visit? Deposed and defeated kings, including Richard III, were regularly initially buried in monasteries to avoid a cult growing up around them that might make trouble for the usurper. Usurpers wanted the deposed king forgotten. Once safe on the throne, the usurper or his descendants might then move the deposed king's body to a more prestigious church.
Of course the Dominicans should celebrate as many Masses as they like, and it would be appropriate for a religious house to look after Richard's remains until they are buried, but I don't see any reason for burying him in their church.
I think, despite the sad way he was last there, St Mary's de Castro would be a better place for him if he has to be in Leicester and Leicester Cathedral doesn't want to honour him properly. Of course, that is assuming St Mary's would honour him appropriately and would extend their opening hours, which I imagine they would do if they had reason to do so.”
by CLANCHIEF
Friday, March 22 2013, 3:49PM
“IT SHOULD BE THE NEXT KING RICHARD IV THAT IS INTITLE TO DESIDE TO WHERE HE GOES WHO IS HIS DIRECT MALE BLOOD LINE AND HE IS NOT FROM HIS SISTER AT ALL”
by knibbsie
Thursday, March 21 2013, 8:59AM
“I am a Catholic and was received in Holy Cross Priory but regretfully I cannot agree with that because it still goes against Richard's 'perceived' wishes - Leicester is a no - no - period.”
by Joansz
Wednesday, March 20 2013, 10:43PM
“I liked John Ashdown-Hill's suggestion in his interview on Lost Castles: "There is a huge Dominican Catholic Priory – Holy Cross Priory – in Leicester, and the Prior approached me last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage. So given the cathedral's appalling behaviour (which has included casting aspersions on Richard III's morals) I would now like to ask the Holy Cross Priory whether they would have room for Richard's tomb in their church."”
by Joansz
Wednesday, March 20 2013, 10:39PM
“I liked John Ashdown-Hill's suggestion to place the Tomb in Holy Cross Priory, a Dominican Priory in Leicester. Before the bones were found, the priory had wanted to hold a requiem mass for Richard III. This would take care of keeping Richard in Leicester and out of Leicester Cathedral, assuming the priory would agree.”
by ThomasH
Monday, March 18 2013, 5:03PM
“clearly roundthehorne hasn't looked at the graphics of the tomb as it's depicted in the sanctuary area of the cathedral which is the place the former dean proposed for it. It's also incredibly modest in scale (7'Lx3.6Wx2.3H) and is only 3 inches bigger than the stone slab. Also the slab has to be walked around and will have a border, curtains and candlesticks to try and make it look 'special' so if its a demarcated space then why not just give him a tomb - this is the whole point.”
by knibbsie
Monday, March 18 2013, 11:47AM
“Leicester cathedral looks awful anyway so I'm not sure how that would change whatever they put in it. Your unknown warrior argument is fallacious isn't it because that is sectioned off - and in a huge place like Westminster Abbey that isn't a problem. leicester cathedral (the fourth smallest cathedral in the UK) is not the size to allow this which I suspect is the main argument against a big tomb because it would get in the way of worship - I have no doubt that the slab would be walked over! The slab proves nothing about money of course that is a "RoundtheHorne" red herring - in fact most Leicesterians I have spoken to do not want Richard buried in Leicester Cathedral but in the church of St Mary De Castro - even they know that the cathedral is "pants" - the fact is when you have no moral or ethical position (like Leicester) - then it has to be money as the main reason. In York where the moral and ethical position is strong then the money aspect is less likely especially since York has lots to see and doesn't need Richard III to make money!! I agree that a big stome monument should be put in York with Richard III IN IT - that is the moral and ethical position and that is what I will continue to speak for and not "give it a rest" - after all Roundthehorne - you have no argument but I would never stop you (or ask you to stop) giving us what little you have!”
by roundthehorne
Monday, March 18 2013, 10:15AM
“Do people really think that the proposed 'slab' will just be part of the floor and constantly walked over? Do they think hordes of tourists every day drag their shoes across the tomb of the Unknown Warrior?
The point is that a massive great stone tomb in the middle of Leicester Cathedral would look awful and prevent the building from carrying out its religious and community functions. The artists' impression provided by the R3 Society shows their tomb within a large, empty area of some hypothetical church: what church has that?
This isn't the 15th century any more and we don't have to 'honour' dead kings by building enormous great structures. A dignified and respectful floor-level memorial in the most prestigious and honoured part of the church would be a fitting memorial to Richard.
Are there really people who would travel to Leicester to see Richard's tomb but would not make the same journey to see a floor-level memorial? I doubt it, but if there are people like that it just emphasises that for Leicester this is not about money but about respect. Sadly the same thing cannot be said of certain other English cities where the citizens have pound-signs in their eyes.
Finally, the design of Leicester Cathedral is a matter for the Cathedral authorities and not for the dead king's fan club. If they want a big stone tomb monument, let them put it in York Minster. Richard himself should be laid to rest respectfully beneath the floor of Leicester Cathedral.”
by knibbsie
Monday, March 18 2013, 9:46AM
“The tomb is a side issue - but does give more evidence to support those of us from Leicester who are not subjects of Kerching morality and ethics - and want to respect the perceived wishes of a man who would no way want to be buried here and deserves better than a 1927 cathedral! Bury him in YORK!!!”
by knibbsie
Monday, March 18 2013, 9:19AM
“The tomb is a side issue - but does give more evidence to support those of us from Leicester who are not subjects of Kerching morality and ethics - and want to respect the perceived wishes of a man who would no way want to be buried here and deserves better than a 1927 cathedral! Bury him in YORK!!!”