If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   No one could accuse the Brits of a lack of passion for their history. As the feud continues over where to bury Richard III, the head of the York Minster church is getting hate mail   (newser.com) divider line 38
    More: Interesting, Richard III, York Minster, discovery, hate mail, University of Leicester  
•       •       •

2238 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 12:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-13 12:42:33 PM
I vote they put him back under the car park where he belongs.
 
2013-03-13 12:44:43 PM
Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.
 
2013-03-13 12:47:16 PM
A hearse! A hearse! My kingdom for a hearse!
 
2013-03-13 12:47:27 PM
I went to York last October, beautiful city and minster.

/csb
 
2013-03-13 12:49:16 PM
Find a new car park?
 
2013-03-13 12:52:14 PM

what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.


Partly right, according to Wikipedia:

Both of Richard's illegitimate children survived him, but they seem to have died without issue.
 
2013-03-13 12:52:29 PM
Gets my vote
www.encyclopirate.com
 
2013-03-13 12:53:13 PM

the_rhino: I went to York last October, beautiful city and minster.

/csb


Indeed. I was there 3 years ago and quite enjoyed my visit. The Jorvik interactive viking museum was fun. I never knew what a viking village smelled like until then.
 
2013-03-13 12:54:20 PM

Ilmarinen: what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.

Partly right, according to Wikipedia:

Both of Richard's illegitimate children survived him, but they seem to have died without issue.


Huh.

I honestly had no idea that he had illegitimate children.
 
2013-03-13 12:56:10 PM

Ilmarinen: what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.

Partly right, according to Wikipedia:

Both of Richard's illegitimate children survived him, but they seem to have died without issue.


Descendants of his siblings.
 
2013-03-13 12:56:28 PM
I'd say the Brits I've met tend to have a good sense of their history.
 
2013-03-13 12:56:36 PM
Over 500 years later, and England is still officially a form of monarchy. Now that's progress.
 
2013-03-13 12:58:03 PM
"I would say to everybody-'calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.'"

What's so special about kings? They weren't all that great.
 
2013-03-13 12:58:42 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Ilmarinen: what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.

Partly right, according to Wikipedia:

Both of Richard's illegitimate children survived him, but they seem to have died without issue.

Descendants of his siblings.


Well, there's not a whole lot of those, either. That time period was an incredibly dangerous time to be a royal.
 
2013-03-13 01:13:51 PM
Tear down all the headstones and put up a parking lot.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:02 PM
Brits are have passion for their history because they have ...
1.bp.blogspot.com
/hot
 
2013-03-13 01:18:05 PM
Who starred in Richard and Richard II? Did they go straight to DVD?
 
2013-03-13 01:18:58 PM

what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.


Increasingly people seem to use the words "ancestor" and "descendant" without respect to a direct genetic or geneological link. The semantic edge of the words is being dulled. English doesn't have an informal kinship term for indirect relations who are not ancestors, or indirect relations who are not descendants. Other languages have different and more varied semantics which can cover such ideas

They mean, of course, descendants of Richard III's sister, Anne. The Canadian family whose DNA helped identify Richard III's remains are descended from Anne.

This error is one of my pet peeves although it doesn't annoy me nearing as much as misusing "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" rather than committing a logical fallacy in which the thing to be proven is one of the assumptions or premises of the argument or in which an argument is based on premises which themselves are severely in need of proof before they can be used to support the conclusion, possibly because the conclusion has to be true before the premises can be true.

When used in the plural, ancestors or descendants is easier to accept as covering family members who are not among your progenitors because you are, so to speak, sweeping together family members closely related to each other and thus to you, but we could really use a word to describe non-ancestral members of collateral lines which share an ancestor with you, but are not ancestors of you, and conversely, the descendants of your relations and ancestors not in your personal pedigree.

I am not to the best of my knowledge at the present time, a descendant of Anne. Edward IV, the brother of Richard III is the first great granduncle of the wife of my 11X great-grandfather, which is almost no relationship at all. His portrait shows that there was a strong family resemblance between the two, although Edward was prettier. This connection is liable to be revised as I fill in more English ancestors, because almost everybody in the British middle classes is descended from Edward III at the latest. The same is true in Scotland of Malcolm IV, and in France of the early Louis.

Royalty is a bugger to keep track of with all those names and titles but they do have nice portrait collections showing them in various important moments of their life and representing their political, marital, and social connections. Nobody is ever accidentally or arbitrarily shown in a royal portrait. Every detail is a statement of prestige, rights, duties, and power as much as a formal contract would be.
 
2013-03-13 01:29:19 PM
Typical Lancaster swine!
 
2013-03-13 01:36:19 PM

Ilmarinen: "I would say to everybody-'calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.'"

What's so special about kings? They weren't all that great.


And this particular one is best known for having a couple of kids murdered so he could be king in the  fіrѕt place. (Yes, I know, a bunch of people swear blind he didn't, but many people would also have you believe Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis, an interdimensional lizard person from Roswell, to cover up the truth about how the moon landings were faked by Bigfoot. He was the one with the best motive and opportunity.)
 
2013-03-13 01:40:55 PM
img2-cdn.newser.com

thiscougarhassomethingtosay.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-13 01:41:55 PM
No one could accuse submitter of thinking up an intelligent or witty headline, as he lazily copy n' pastes the first sentence.

All that's happening here is people are arguing over how best to get tourist money. It's shameful.

I am an impartial 3rd party and I don't care about tourists, give me the final say. I say Westminster. A traditional resting place for English kings.
 
2013-03-13 01:44:34 PM

brantgoose: what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.

Increasingly people seem to use the words "ancestor" and "descendant" without respect to a direct genetic or geneological link. The semantic edge of the words is being dulled. English doesn't have an informal kinship term for indirect relations who are not ancestors, or indirect relations who are not descendants. Other languages have different and more varied semantics which can cover such ideas


"Collateral descendants" is the term I've heard, usually applied to the descendants of someone's siblings. I'm not sure if "collateral ancestor" is a real term, though -- besides, if you back far enough, almost everyone in recorded history could be claimed as collateral ancestor.

York Minster is a beautiful place, but in this case I think they're wrong; the body's been in Leicester for 500+ years and there's no reason not to follow protocol with ancient skeletons, which is to bury them in the nearest church. Besides, if Richard III really had a problem with it, surely he could have made a few spectral visitations to let people know about it. Though I suppose that even if York doesn't get him, they could always build a cenotaph, like Florence did for Dante (whose remains are and always were in Ravenna). That should bring some of the tourist money.
 
2013-03-13 01:44:57 PM
I would say it's more respectful to the remains to bury them in the nearest appropriate place.  Yes, monarchs are traditionally buried at Westminster, but he wasn't killed nor found near Westminster.
 
2013-03-13 01:54:37 PM
You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-13 02:02:21 PM
Master Sphincter: kidd-gibet.jpg

A little early in the day for a BDSM posting.....
 
2013-03-13 02:02:25 PM

I Ate Shergar: Ilmarinen: "I would say to everybody-'calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.'"

What's so special about kings? They weren't all that great.

And this particular one is best known for having a couple of kids murdered so he could be king in the  fіrѕt place. (Yes, I know, a bunch of people swear blind he didn't, but many people would also have you believe Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis, an interdimensional lizard person from Roswell, to cover up the truth about how the moon landings were faked by Bigfoot. He was the one with the best motive and opportunity.)


Actually, I'd argue that Henry the 7th had more motive than Richard. Richard could have kept them alive but had them declared bastards.

If those children were left alive and were legitimate, they were the King and Prince of Wales. Henry married their sister to end the War of the Roses, and so he needed them to be legitimate to legitimatize their sister.

No idea what happened of course. Just saying.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:11 PM

what_now: I Ate Shergar: Ilmarinen: "I would say to everybody-'calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.'"

What's so special about kings? They weren't all that great.

And this particular one is best known for having a couple of kids murdered so he could be king in the  fіrѕt place. (Yes, I know, a bunch of people swear blind he didn't, but many people would also have you believe Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis, an interdimensional lizard person from Roswell, to cover up the truth about how the moon landings were faked by Bigfoot. He was the one with the best motive and opportunity.)

Actually, I'd argue that Henry the 7th had more motive than Richard. Richard could have kept them alive but had them declared bastards.

If those children were left alive and were legitimate, they were the King and Prince of Wales. Henry married their sister to end the War of the Roses, and so he needed them to be legitimate to legitimatize their sister.

No idea what happened of course. Just saying.


Henry was in France when the shenanigans happened, though.  He might have had motive, but Richard is the only one with motive and means.
 
2013-03-13 02:45:53 PM
Where's the nearest butt of malmsey?
 
2013-03-13 03:36:14 PM

what_now: I Ate Shergar: Ilmarinen: "I would say to everybody-'calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.'"

What's so special about kings? They weren't all that great.

And this particular one is best known for having a couple of kids murdered so he could be king in the  fіrѕt place. (Yes, I know, a bunch of people swear blind he didn't, but many people would also have you believe Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis, an interdimensional lizard person from Roswell, to cover up the truth about how the moon landings were faked by Bigfoot. He was the one with the best motive and opportunity.)

Actually, I'd argue that Henry the 7th had more motive than Richard. Richard could have kept them alive but had them declared bastards.

If those children were left alive and were legitimate, they were the King and Prince of WalesDuke of York and Norfolk. Henry married their sister to end the War of the Roses, and so he needed them to be legitimate to legitimatize their sister.

No idea what happened of course. Just saying.


FTFY

You might want to ask the next Duke of Norfolk about that. Charming fellow, name of Howard. Had the keys to the Tower about that time, as I recall.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:19 PM
This is a still from a weird version of "Richard III" set in modern times, tanks, planes and Kirsten Scott Thomas. Yeah, that's Gandalf.

cdn.ph.upi.com
 
2013-03-13 03:53:21 PM

the_rhino: I went to York last October, beautiful city and minster.

/csb


/agree

York minster awesome.  Especially going up on the roof and seeing the scary tiny stairs for climbing up on the various stone spires and jibjabs.
 
2013-03-13 03:58:25 PM

RenownedCurator: York Minster is a beautiful place, but in this case I think they're wrong; the body's been in Leicester for 500+ years and there's no reason not to follow protocol with ancient skeletons, which is to bury them in the nearest church.


Uh-oh!  Eastside-Westside Yorkshire-Leicestershire drama!  I'm gonna be selling the roses (you only need white, and then some red dye - shhh! - don't tell anybody...)
 
2013-03-13 04:15:40 PM
Richard was a slightly-built man with a serious physical handicap but he went out in an awesome manner at the Battle of Bosworth, coming within an ace of killing Henery Tudor in the thick of the slaughter before being overwhelmed. I downloaded a documentary about the fisnding of the body and when they listed all the feadful woulnds he suffered, some of them posthumous humiliation wounds, a tear came to my eye. He was a good king despite the Princes in the tower.

Also, read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey.
 
2013-03-13 04:50:11 PM
They're just pissy that they didn't get a horse for their kingdom.
 
2013-03-13 06:02:46 PM
A Catholic work colleague of mine was telling me how important it was for his mortal soul that he be reburied in consecrated church ground.

Because apparently, god is such an insufferable coont that he'll condemn you to hell because of something somebody does with your remains 500 farking years after you die.
 
2013-03-13 07:14:00 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: A Catholic work colleague of mine was telling me how important it was for his mortal soul that he be reburied in consecrated church ground.

Because apparently, god is such an insufferable coont that he'll condemn you to hell because of something somebody does with your remains 500 farking years after you die.


Not according to Catholicism, he isn't -- I don't know where your colleague got his information from but it sure wasn't the Catechism. Doesn't he know about all the saints who were murdered and otherwise not buried anywhere near consecrated ground?

Anyway, RIII was buried in consecrated ground at the time, it's just that the church was eventually razed. I don't think any religion has a policy where God kicks you out of heaven 400 years after your arrival because the living decided to pave over your burial plot. (For what it's worth, I think he did it, but a lot of kings buried in splendid circumstances have done equally foul things, so if Henry VIII could have a big, fancy funeral there's no reason Richard couldn't).
 
2013-03-13 09:48:30 PM

Ilmarinen: what_now: Nine of Richard's descendants have called for his reburial at York,

Richard the Third doesn't have descendents. His only child died as a young boy.

Partly right, according to Wikipedia:

Both of Richard's illegitimate children survived him, but they seem to have died without issue.


A friend of mine who is all into genealogy insists that Ancestor.com told her she is descended from Julius Caesar.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report