King Richard III dug up and displayed in Leicester, England

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
Local Press and comments......

Local Press coverage

Basically, it seems we couldn't be bothered to garner enough signatures to get him sent here for burial. Apathetic modern society!


ETA:

The Richard III Society wanted York to be his burial place.
edit on 5-2-2013 by Flavian because: (no reason given)


Good post. It seems the signatures were requested before it was announced that it was Richard, so the race to the gravesite should start now. And since you are in York, it may be up to you to create the fuss and bother. Apparantly the government, local historical society, and local buffoons, ah, I mean, hoity toity, are not pushing for it, so it needs a citizens effort. And that's as easy as making up a name and calling a meeting, publicizing the meeting, and when people contact you and show up, appoint them all to committees. Fairly easy, really.
Are you still reading this? Go. Organize! Fight the good fight, because when nobody else is doing it, you are left to retrieve the King to the North where he belongs (remember, they left him in a parking lot!)


edit on 5-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


It doesn't mean that because he is Richard the third that his father was Richard the second. Your post is a hotchpotch of incorrect statements. How can people state things as true without googling the facts first?
I thought only children thought all the Richards and Georges followed each other in succesion.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by transubstantiation
reply to post by angelchemuel
 




Given that just three posts after angelchemuel's post this very point was made regarding Richard II and Richard III, how does this add anything to the thread?
edit on 5/2/13 by erwalker because: punctuation



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
This may be bad taste,but are they seriously going to bury him after so much effort to dig him up??

glass case in a york museum would be better surely.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Just a quick update on this.

York have now petitioned for the body to be buried in York Minster, however the Mayor of Leicester has stated that a new visitors centre is already planned, to be opened next year.

Leicester University have confirmed that as part of the dig licence agreement, should Richards remains be found, the will be buried in Leicester!
In other words we found him and we're keeping him as the tourist attraction is already planned and we need the money!

I believe that the Bishop of York has already petitioned the queen.
Full story herewww.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ironorchid
Just a quick update on this.

York have now petitioned for the body to be buried in York Minster, however the Mayor of Leicester has stated that a new visitors centre is already planned, to be opened next year.

Leicester University have confirmed that as part of the dig licence agreement, should Richards remains be found, the will be buried in Leicester!
In other words we found him and we're keeping him as the tourist attraction is already planned and we need the money!

I believe that the Bishop of York has already petitioned the queen.
Full story herewww.guardian.co.uk...


Great update. Even though the RichardIII Society and University made an agreement with the city, that shouldn't be the final word. It's a private society and an institution of knowledge, getting permission to dig up a parking lot, not the most earthshaking of disturbances to their city.

Being that these are possibly the remains of a King, a Northern King, this should be an easy decision, and York seems to have first, second, and third rights to rebury their own. Leicester wants a tourist site and tourist income. I hope this gets more heated, and the York contingent does not back down in the face of a legal agreement which may have no standing in the long run. The Prime Minister and Royal family will probably have to intervene at some point, even Parliment may have to have a say. Yet again, York will have to keep the pressure on. This should be a very interesting battle of wills.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Looks like another 'war of the roses' is about to start, concerning good king Richard the third and his interment.
damn good post by the way, I love history, this thread has been really interesting.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
Looks like another 'war of the roses' is about to start, concerning good king Richard the third and his interment.
damn good post by the way, I love history, this thread has been really interesting.


I'm game. We practiced on the tough lot over the border (Pennines and up in Scotland). Soft southern pansies (Leicestershire) should be no problem in comparison!


Has anyone else seen that Leicester plan to give him a multi faith burial?
Are they serious?
His forebears fought Crusades, he was a Catholic ( a Medieval Catholic to boot) and they plan on a multi faith burial?


For that reason alone Leicester should have any claim to him stripped immediately.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


[EDIT: This was posted without seeing Flavian's post just above, where he covers the catholic and multi-faith controversy as well.]

Or at least giving the country and world an education on the war of the roses.

I've just read the linked story and comments, and the points that stand out to me is that RichardIII was a catholic and should be buried in catholic ground, which is what York is proposing. Leicester wants to bury him in a non-catholic church and have a multi-religious ceremony, which has gotten some people's hackles up. Maybe the pope will get involved in this question.

And a poster on that article said that burying III in Leicester would be like interrning America's Abe Lincoln in Ford's Theater, or John Kennedy in Dallas (right in the Grassy Knoll, I would add).
edit on 6-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by HelenConway
exactly that is why they say the plantagenets were the last english kings - the tudors were sort of English,



Originally posted by HelenConway
King Richard is not related to any of the present 'royals'.


He is, just not as a direct descendant. Our current Queen can trace her ancestry back to Harold of Godwin. Harold was related to William the Conqueror, as Harold and William were both cousins of Edward the Confessor... Again, you should know this....


.


Stu this jusy shows your ignorance in this matter - do your research and stop being such a holier then thou ****
let me explain this again .. slowly this time, there is no genetic connection between the Queen and Rixhard the third.
Denying ignorance means - stop talking out your bum, just because it is your opinion does not mean it is the truth.
Plus that avatar of yours is racist - it should not be allowed on ATS, are you affiliated with the EDL ?

IT EVEN SAYS SO IN THE CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY - watch it , learn something,,
edit on 6-2-2013 by HelenConway
edit on 6-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
Stu this jusy shows your ignorance in this matter - do your research and stop being such a holier then thou ****
let me explain this again .. slowly this time, there is no genetic connection between the Queen and Rixhard the third.
Denying ignorance means - stop talking out your bum, just because it is your opinion does not mean it is the truth.
Plus that avatar of yours is racist - it should not be allowed on ATS, are you affiliated with the EDL ?

IT EVEN SAYS SO IN THE CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY - watch it , learn something,,
edit on 6-2-2013 by HelenConway
edit on 6-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)


Both Richard III and Elizabeth II share common ancestors so there is a genetic connection. The problem with that is it is so diluted that it is not testable.
You need an unbroken matrilineal connection for mitochondrial DNA, as was the case with Michael Ibsen to Richard III's mother, or an unbroken patrilineal connection via Y chromosome DNA to prove the genetic connection. Neither exists For Richard III or Elizabeth II to their common ancestor.

By the way, stumason's avatar is the coat of arms for the St. George Society of Toronto. The Society is not racist and has no connection to the EDL. So deny ignorance and stop talking out of your own bum. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 




Plus that avatar of yours is racist


I'm sure stu will be along in due course, but in the mean time could you please explain exactly how you think that is true becasue I for one really don't see it - and where is the relevance to this thread?



- it should not be allowed on ATS,


Could you please show what part of T&C it contravenes?

And if that was true I'm sure, considering how well ATS is moderated etc, that someone would have mentioned it given that stu has used it for years.



are you affiliated with the EDL ?


Some easy research should provide you with the answer to that question - but I would be very interested how you came to that assumption.
edit on 6/2/13 by Freeborn because: fix quote



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
He should definately be burried respectfully in York and not as tourist attraction in Leicester. Who the hell signed that agreement?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
He should definately be burried respectfully in York and not as tourist attraction in Leicester. Who the hell signed that agreement?


Yes, before anybody signed an agreement there must have been quite a pointed and in-depth discussion that "If we do find him, you know York is going to want the body". These people are not stupid, and they've all contributed a great thing to English and world history, as well as to historical archeologicial success stories. But someone in the group, as well as Leicester officials, had to know that Richard was catholic, had already made arrangements for his burial services in York, and that his rightful place was of course in the North. Their only hope was that nobody was going to make a fuss, and that whatever agreement they came to would be binding (I can't see how, given Richard's own wishes), but even there they had to know that York would not just accept this.

So, in reality, they were prepared for a fight, or for the very low chance that everyone would just say "Sure, he belongs in Leicester, no argument, mate."

Now is the winter of their, something something. The question will probably be resolved quickly, before it escalates, and I'm guessing some back room deal will be made, Leicester and the University will give up the bones, and in return that parking lot will become a very well visited place for the curious and the historically minded among us.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


And the only King of England to die in battle aside from Harold of Godwin


Although not the last British King - that honour falls to James IV of Scotland who died fighting the English when Scotland decided to invade us in support of the French...


Wouldn't the last British King be George VI?

Just curious.


Huh?

I meant the last British King to die in Battle, that much is clear from the context of the discussion. I have no idea why you have brought up George IV, as he died in 1830 from a combination of dementia and poor health. What's more baffling is someone actually starred your nonsensical post.


What's with the hostility? I asked a simple question you don't have to be rude.

Maybe I should have contextually understood that you meant the last British King to die in battle, and maybe you should have been observant enough to notice that I didn't even mention George IV but George VI, we all make mistakes, sadly I didn't take context into the equation, what a horrible and nonsensical person I must be.

I wasn't nonsensical at all, I had a genuine question to a brit from the perspective of an outsider and you chose to answer like an ass.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
[
edit on 7-2-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I just discovered that Helen has created another thread on the same subject, at first focusing on the facial reconstruction and then going into the general topics of this thread. Her first post on that thread is very good, at least the top of it before she goes into the topics she was talking about here, and I'd suggest a read of it and the rest of that thread. Nice work Helen, even though, well, you know. Here's the link:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I'm borrowing this from Helen's first post on her thread (her thread has good discussion and data, link in post just above this one). It's an important graphic for any thread on Richard's death, burial, and recent discovery. It looks like he was killed with two wounds to the head, one a major skull cutting and shaking head trauma (think John Kennedy and the shot from the back - or the front), and a sword wound which went all the way thru his brain before hitting his skull on the other side. A pretty bad day for the old boy:



Source, Daily Mail online: www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 7-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I wasn't going to bother, but I'm at work and bored....



Originally posted by HelenConway
Stu this jusy shows your ignorance in this matter - do your research and stop being such a holier then thou ****
let me explain this again .. slowly this time, there is no genetic connection between the Queen and Rixhard the third.


No, the show actually said that they weren't descended. However, HM The Queen can trace her ancestry back to several Anglo-Saxon kings, including Harold of Godwin and Alfred the Great. I am pinching the below from another site where someone has kindly done the leg work for me:



Queen's Elizabeth's ancestry through the Cerdic and the West Saxon royal line (including Alfred the Great):
Cerdic, 1st King of Wessex ---> Creoda ---> Cynric of Wessex ---> Ceawlin of Wessex ---> Cuthwine ---> Cutha Cathwulf ---> Ceolwald of Wessex ---> Coenred of Wessex ---> Ingild of Wessex ---> Eoppa ---> Eafa ---> Ealhmund of Kent ---> Egbert I (first King of England) ---> Aethelwulf of Wessex ---> Alfred the Great ---> Edward the Elder ---> Edmund I ---> Edgar ---> Ethelred II ---> Edmund II ---> Edward the Exile ---> Margaret of Scotland ---> Edith of Scotland ---> Empress Matilda ---> Henry II ---> King John ---> Henry III ---> Edward I ---> Edward II ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II


Another line from Alfred the Great:
Alfred the Great ---> Aelfthryth, Countess of Flanders ---> Arnulf I, Count of Flanders ---> Baldwin III of Flanders ---> Arnulf II, Count of Flanders ---> Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders---> Baldwin V, Count of Flanders---> Matilda of Flanders ---> Henry I of England ---> Empress Matilda ---> Henry II ---> King John ---> Henry III ---> Edward I ---> Edward II ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II


Queen Elizabeth's ancestry through Harold Godwinson (Harold II of England):
Harold Godwinson ---> Gytha of Wessex ---> Mstislav I of Kiev ---> Euphrosyne of Kiev ---> Bela III of Hungary ---> Andrew II of Hungary ---> Violant of Hungary ---> Isabella of Aragon ---> Philip IV of France ---> Isabella of France, Queen of England ---> Edward III ---> Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence ---> Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster ---> Roger, 4th Earl of March ---> Anne de Mortimer ---> Richard, 3rd Duke of York ---> Edward IV ---> Elizabeth of York ---> Margaret Tudor ---> James V of Scotland ---> Mary, Queen of Scots ---> James I and VI of England and Scotland ---> Elizabeth of Bohemia ---> Sophia of Hanover ---> George I ---> George II ---> Frederick, Prince of Wales ---> George III ---> Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn ---> Queen Victoria ---> Edward VII ---> George V ---> George VI ---> Queen Elizabeth II

Link to source


Of course, don't take my word or even this chaps word for it - go look up the lineage yourself.


Originally posted by HelenConway
Denying ignorance means - stop talking out your bum, just because it is your opinion does not mean it is the truth.


No, it does not. However, that doesn't change the fact that I am actually telling the truth and attempting deny ignorance, specifically yours.


Originally posted by HelenConway
Plus that avatar of yours is racist - it should not be allowed on ATS, are you affiliated with the EDL ?


Now you're just grasping, Helen. What exactly is racist about my avatar? It's a coat of arms, for crying out loud. And no, I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form with the EDL.


Originally posted by HelenConway
IT EVEN SAYS SO IN THE CHANNEL 4 DOCUMENTARY - watch it , learn something


I did watch it and it is clear you have misheard or misunderstood what they said and have done little to no research of your own.
edit on 7/2/13 by stumason because: Tags were wrong



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Looks like York has been dealt a major blow, with the Minster (in York) saying he should stay in Leicester - fu*~!ng religious tosspots!


On the other hand, the fight goes on........

York campaigners vow to continue fight for Richard III



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
active topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join