I can understand people getting upset if its immediate family, say their granny, but one of thousands of ancestors from over 500 years ago?
Quote
Richard III reburial court bid fails
Distant relatives of King Richard III have lost their High Court battle over where his remains should be reburied.
His remains were found in a Leicester car park in 2012 and the city's cathedral was lined up for his tomb, but some wanted him reburied in York.
But a group claiming descent from the king's wider family were granted a judicial review, arguing more views should have been taken into account.
Judges at the High Court said there was "no duty to consult".
In the ruling, they added: "There was no public law grounds for the court to interfere."
'Dignity and honour'
Killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Richard III was buried in a Leicester church but the building was lost to later development.
Authorities in Leicester said they were delighted at the decision and they looked forward to reinterring the body with "dignity and honour".
Continue reading the main story
Timetable of the row
22 August 1485: King Richard III is killed at the Battle of Bosworth
September 2012: University of Leicester applies for an exhumation licence. The same month, two bodies are excavated
12 September 2012: Experts announce one of the bodies could be Richard but further tests are needed
4 February 2013: The university declares it is the body of the former king and begins arrangements for the reinterment in the cathedral
3 May 2013: Plantagenet Alliance issues judicial review proceedings
August 2013: Court grants the right for the review
27 November 2013: Judicial review is adjourned when Leicester City Council agrees to a public consultation. It later changes its mind
13 March 2014: Two-day hearing for judicial review at the High Court in London
23 May 2014: Judicial review dismisses challenge
In pictures: Who was the real Richard III?
Discover more about the last Plantagenet king
The group which brought the challenge, the Plantagenet Alliance, claimed York was a more suitable location for Richard's remains as he had spent his childhood and much of his adult life in the North.
In the court case, they had argued the unique nature of the discovery meant more consultation should have taken place.
Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, ruled there were no public law grounds for interfering with the plans for reburial at Leicester Cathedral.
....
rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836)
Where do you stand on people taking 'ownership' of long dead ancestors?
It is interesting that the UK court has gone in a different direction from North American courts where first nations have claimed similar rights regarding the remains of ancestors.
Regardless of the claims or not of putative descendants he should be reburied in York, not Leicester. This disappoints me.
Thought this was the Battle of Yavin. Would have been badass if some Y-Wings had fucked up the Lannister's shit.
I saw a program on the Ricardians - very strange folks. I cannot imagine caring that much about whether Richard III was a good guy or a bad guy.
The most priceless moment was when the head Ricardian lady, the one who inspired the dig that actually found his body, was told that the skeleton had a spinal deformity - her whole schtick up until that moment was that the whole "deformed Richard" thing was Tudor propaganda. The look of dismay on her face was awesome - here they were, being reasonably sure the body was Richard exactly because it was deformed, when the whole point, to her, was to dispel Tudor mythology on the subject.
The guy she was with quite reasonably pointed out that whether he was deformed or not had no bearing on whether he was a bad guy or not, and she cheered up.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2014, 01:51:28 PM
I saw a program on the Ricardians - very strange folks. I cannot imagine caring that much about whether Richard III was a good guy or a bad guy.
The most priceless moment was when the head Ricardian lady, the one who inspired the dig that actually found his body, was told that the skeleton had a spinal deformity - her whole schtick up until that moment was that the whole "deformed Richard" thing was Tudor propaganda. The look of dismay on her face was awesome - here they were, being reasonably sure the body was Richard exactly because it was deformed, when the whole point, to her, was to dispel Tudor mythology on the subject.
The guy she was with quite reasonably pointed out that whether he was deformed or not had no bearing on whether he was a bad guy or not, and she cheered up.
Yes, they are an odd lot.
There are still a few fans of Stalin out there, who adopt similar attitudes.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2014, 01:51:28 PM
I saw a program on the Ricardians - very strange folks. I cannot imagine caring that much about whether Richard III was a good guy or a bad guy.
The most priceless moment was when the head Ricardian lady, the one who inspired the dig that actually found his body, was told that the skeleton had a spinal deformity - her whole schtick up until that moment was that the whole "deformed Richard" thing was Tudor propaganda. The look of dismay on her face was awesome - here they were, being reasonably sure the body was Richard exactly because it was deformed, when the whole point, to her, was to dispel Tudor mythology on the subject.
The guy she was with quite reasonably pointed out that whether he was deformed or not had no bearing on whether he was a bad guy or not, and she cheered up.
In 89 I spent some time In York and met some people who belonged the the Richard III Society. There were quite a dedicated lot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 23, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
In 89 I spent some time In York and met some people who belonged the the Richard III Society. There were quite a dedicated lot.
It just seems a very odd thing to become a "thing".
Sure, the Tudors blackened the hell out of his name - I mean, they were usurpers, so they pretty well had to. OTOH, he was also a usurper, and as such he no doubt did some pretty nasty stuff. Both were absolutely routine for their time and place - Renaissance princes tended to be a rough lot, if they wanted to survive. Why anyone would care about "rehabilitating" Richard's name now is something I have trouble understanding.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 23, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
In 89 I spent some time In York and met some people who belonged the the Richard III Society. There were quite a dedicated lot.
It just seems a very odd thing to become a "thing".
Sure, the Tudors blackened the hell out of his name - I mean, they were usurpers, so they pretty well had to. OTOH, he was also a usurper, and as such he no doubt did some pretty nasty stuff. Both were absolutely routine for their time and place - Renaissance princes tended to be a rough lot, if they wanted to survive. Why anyone would care about "rehabilitating" Richard's name now is something I have trouble understanding.
How was Richard III an usurper? Edward IV was a bigamist so his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was legally invalidated, so the Princes in the Tower were legally bastards. Parliament didn't dispute this at the time, so Richard's claim was legit.
What sealed the deal was that the Princes did disappear, Richard couldn't please all his supporters, and Henry Tudor had some powerful backing both outside and inside Britain. And even then he almost lost Bosworth Fields.
Quote from: Drakken on May 23, 2014, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 23, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
In 89 I spent some time In York and met some people who belonged the the Richard III Society. There were quite a dedicated lot.
It just seems a very odd thing to become a "thing".
Sure, the Tudors blackened the hell out of his name - I mean, they were usurpers, so they pretty well had to. OTOH, he was also a usurper, and as such he no doubt did some pretty nasty stuff. Both were absolutely routine for their time and place - Renaissance princes tended to be a rough lot, if they wanted to survive. Why anyone would care about "rehabilitating" Richard's name now is something I have trouble understanding.
How was Richard III an usurper? Edward IV was a bigamist so his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was legally invalidated, so the Princes in the Tower were legally bastards. Parliament didn't dispute this at the time, so Richard's claim was legit.
What sealed the deal was that the Princes did disappear, Richard couldn't please all his supporters, and Henry Tudor had some powerful backing both outside and inside Britain. And even then he almost lost Bosworth Fields.
Since, unlike a 15th century royalist, I'm not someone who cares much about the alleged legitimacy of the contenders, I'll simply say that plenty of people at the time thought Richard's bastardization of his nephews somewhat dubious and convenient - though of course, such controversies were very much par for the course at the time (Henry the 8th bastardized both of his daughters at one point or another, and both reigned as queens nonetheless!).
Point being, he seems not much
different from his contemporaries - neither worse nor better. Bastardizing one's close relations, or murdering them, was what Renaissance Princes
did to get or keep power - even the best of them.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2014, 02:36:57 PM
It just seems a very odd thing to become a "thing".
It's a hobby. Like genealogy, or cooking, or gardening.
Though they probably wouldn't like that comparison.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 23, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
Regardless of the claims or not of putative descendants he should be reburied in York, not Leicester. This disappoints me.
This. I'm a fan of Richard III, though perhaps not quite to the level of the Richard III Society. Close though.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 23, 2014, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 23, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
Regardless of the claims or not of putative descendants he should be reburied in York, not Leicester. This disappoints me.
This. I'm a fan of Richard III, though perhaps not quite to the level of the Richard III Society. Close though.
Nah. Bury him as close as you can to where he was buried before. That's what the people of the time decided, and so that's what should be done. Fuck revisionism.
I think he should have a Catholic state funeral in Fountains Abbey, or something :w00t:
Was he actually Richard of York?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 23, 2014, 06:41:09 PM
I think he should have a Catholic state funeral in Fountains Abbey, or something :w00t:
That would be fine.