Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones

[Deleted]

Today's Citizen has Richard Graham supporting the idiotic suggestion that the bones of Richard III (if, indeed, they are shown to be his by DNA testing) should be interred in Gloucester Cathedral.

His argument is that the king was Duke of Gloucester. Well, by that argument, when Prince Phillip dies, he should be interred in St. Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh, rather than Windsor (where other members of the royal family are interred).

As far as I can see, Richard III had very little connection to Gloucester. He had the title of Duke of Gloucester, but I don't think that he ever lived here. He gave the city its charter in 1483, but that's hardly a reason to inter him here.

Edward II was only interred in Gloucester Cathedral because he was murdered at Berkeley Castle. Similarly, Richard III was (probably) interred at Leicester because he died in battle at Bosworth Field, which is not far from Leicester.

The only other place to have a good claim on Richard's remains is York. He was of the House of York and was connected with York Minster. He lived his life mainly in the East Midlands and the North of England. It would be ridiculous to inter his bones in Gloucester Cathedral.

[Deleted]

I've been expecting TiG to add the story online, but that hasn't happened yet.

The Citizen article is badly researched; it claims that the bones were found at the site of the Battle of Bosworth, when they were actually discovered in a grave at the site of the former Grey Friars church in Leicester.

If I were to place a bet, I'd bet that the bones aren't even those of Richard III. We don't know for certain that he was buried at Grey Friars. Even if he was, the church and all tombs were destroyed during the dissolution of the monasteries. There is a remote possibility that he was buried under the tomb, rather than within it, which seems to me to be clutching at straws.

[Deleted]

We'll have to wait till January 2013 for the DNA test results, according to the BBC news pages.

[Deleted]

Well, colour me amazed. The bones are said to be those of King Richard, beyond reasonable doubt. The head archaeologist and the Richard III Society were stunned.

They're still not going to be interred at Gloucester, though!

[Deleted]

There was an interesting documentary on Channel 4 about Richard's bones yesterday. I think that it was repeated on 4seven. There was a woman called Philippa from the Richard III Society, and she spent almost the whole programme on the verge of tears. Anyone would have thought that they were the bones of her long-lost brother or something. She was particularly upset to learn that he really was a hunchback.

I felt that the display of the reconstruction of Richard's head, as he would have looked in life, was so rushed that it was over in seconds. They could have spent a bit more time on that, and a bit less time on film of the holes being dug.

[Deleted]

The discovery of Richard's bones does seem to have stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. The descendants of his siblings are now challenging the decision to have the bones reburied in Leicester Cathedral. They believe that, as his closest living relatives, they should have been allowed to decide where he was buried, and they want that place to be York Minster. They're calling themselves the Plantagenet Alliance, and claim that their human rights have been breached. They've started legal action against the Ministry of Justice. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a private and family life, but I don't see that it is reasonable to apply it to this case. Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than argue about the burial of the bones of someone who has been dead for 528 years?

I also wonder how many of these extremely distant relatives of Richard III are Catholic, as Richard was. York Minster is now Protestant, just as Leicester Cathedral is. The Richard III Society are promoting a tomb within Leicester Cathedral. The University of Leicester (which holds the burial licence) says that there is no legal obligation to consult living relatives where the remains are more than 100 years old.

[accountsgeoff]

Seems that if it is idiotic then our MP wants his spin on it!! He told me in an email when I contacted him about the misconduct in Shire Hall that "the people of Gloucester would not appreciate him dealing with an historic case that started before he was elected". Dumb ass, the abuse from the council and their lies and cover ups are ongoing. He can go to the Falklands or Iraq or wherever that started before he was elected yet he cannot deal with matters in his own back yard.
He was presented with a 37 page summary of the lies from the county council and supporting evidence yet he was briefed by the council to the effect that he called me a liar and to stop making up stories!!
Well when his researcher writes he cannot put info received from the council in writing as I have FOIed the council before then it smacks. He does not like me copying him on emails to the council yet he is supposedly there for us!!! What a pompous twit - let us hope he gets his ass kicked at the general election. I don't care who wins as long as it is not him!!

[Deleted]

Yup. Dumb ass he is. Richard Graham was happy enough to get involved with the case of the stadium-less football club, even though Gloucester AFC has been without a ground since the 2007 floods, and yet he apparently claims that the people of Gloucester would not appreciate him dealing with a case that started before he was elected.

[Joe K]

Right enough. Pehaps if someone had asked him to get involved in the Richard businesss, he would have turned them down from sheer force of habit, on the grounds that it happened 'before he became MP'...

He's still slightly more personable than his predecessor, at least in the flesh, but the repetitive cries of 'better things to do' is grating after a spell.

If all the people who have asked for his help were to come on here and rate his response between 1 and 10... well, I'd obviously be really happy, but as well as that, we might get a picture of just how useful our MP has really been since winning the seat...

[Deleted]

Ah, but someone did ask him to get involved in the Richard III business. In October 2012, retired couple Ted and Anne Hancock of Abbeydale started agitating for the bones to be interred in Gloucester Cathedral along with Edward II. At least, that's what TiG reported on 1st November. Not that they tend to get the facts straight; where is Saintbridge Road, for instance? That's where the article says that Ted and Anne live, but I can't find it on the map.

[Joe K]

No surprise to see Graham applying double standards, then, depending on whatever suits him at the time...

[Deleted]

Well, at least we're going to get a chance to look at the reconstructed head in March next year. It would be nice to have a proper exhibition about Richard III, his reign and his links with Gloucester.