Richard the Third

[mercia]

on our local TV news just now they had a prof. who seemed slightly more confident about the King Alfred (proposed ?) dig than the Richard 3 dig, for two reasons I think. He said they know the exact whereabouts of the bones of Alfred's granddaughter [in Germany] and he felt this was a far closer relative for DNA testing than in Richard's case. Secondly he seemed to be a bit worried about Richard's feet bones. Where are they? he asked ...... a reasonable question I suppose.

[BBMmk2]

In our local bbc news progrtamme, a Church in kent has asked the same R£ dig team to come down to their church and make a similar to R3's illiegitimate son, who is supposed;ly buried there!?!?!?

[eighthobstruction]

York Minister now say they do not want him....but vox pop of York streets says rubbish of course we want him....

[eighthobstruction]

In our local bbc news progrtamme, a Church in kent has asked the same R£ dig team to come down to their church and make a similar to R3's illiegitimate son, who is supposed;ly buried there!?!?!?

.....ah definite evidence of R2and a half....

[Petrushka]

on our local TV news just now they had a prof. who seemed slightly more confident about the King Alfred (proposed ?) dig than the Richard 3 dig, for two reasons I think. He said they know the exact whereabouts of the bones of Alfred's granddaughter [in Germany] and he felt this was a far closer relative for DNA testing than in Richard's case. Secondly he seemed to be a bit worried about Richard's feet bones. Where are they? he asked ...... a reasonable question I suppose.

This point was answered by the team to the effect that 19th century building works had come incredibly close to destroying the grave entirely, so close indeed that the feet actually were destroyed. I believe there was only a matter of inches in it and the bones would have been gone for ever.

[Pabmusic]

This point was answered by the team to the effect that 19th century building works had come incredibly close to destroying the grave entirely, so close indeed that the feet actually were destroyed. I believe there was only a matter of inches in it and the bones would have been gone for ever.

Yes, I believe that's right.

I don't think it's true of this case, but many early battle burial sites have skeletons that are missing feet and lower legs. It was often the best target in the days of a shield-wall, or well armoured foot soldiers. One swipe with an axe or two-handed sword...

[Petrushka]

Yes, I believe that's right.

I don't think it's true of this case, but many early battle burial sites have skeletons that are missing feet and lower legs. It was often the best target in the days of a shield-wall, or well armoured foot soldiers. One swipe with an axe or two-handed sword...

Yes this explanation crossed my mind as well before hearing of the one given. I did also have doubts that Richard would, King or not, have received a Christian burial especially as he was defeated in battle and unlikely to have been granted much mercy by the victors. Apparently the team at Leicester University considered it unthinkable that he did not. Any thoughts on this?

[jean]

They've just been talking about this on Today in Parliament - a Tory MP (whose name I didn't catch) said he was buried by the Greyfriars and so the present car park must once have been consecrated ground.

He also said that while Richard should have a Catholic burial, it should be according to the Sarum rite, which, as he had been advised by his friend Rees-Mogg junior (who takes the whip from the Pope) is quite different from what the Church uses these days which is (according to R-M) the Tridentine rite.

I don't know where R-M has been for the last half century.

[french frank]

He also said that while Richard should have a Catholic burial, it should be according to the Sarum rite

And in an appropriate building dating back to that time ...?

[Pabmusic]

They've just been talking about this on Today in Parliament - a Tory MP (whose name I didn't catch) said he was buried by the Greyfriars and so the present car park must once have been consecrated ground...

That didn't take much working out, though, did it? Richard was buried near the altar of the chapel of Grey Friars Priory, which was dissolved during the Reformation. The dig found him within the chapel.

The present name of the area - Greyfriars - was quite a good clue in itself. The MP didn't have to think very hard for that revelation.

...He also said that while Richard should have a Catholic burial, it should be according to the Sarum rite, which, as he had been advised by his friend Rees-Mogg junior (who takes the whip from the Pope) is quite different from what the Church uses these days which is (according to R-M) the Tridentine rite.

I don't know where R-M has been for the last half century.

How strange. I know nothing of the change to these rites, but there presumably was a reason and the change resulted in an improvement (otherwise why do it at all?). If that's so, why should anyone deny Richard the 'improved' rites?

[Pabmusic]

Yes this explanation crossed my mind as well before hearing of the one given. I did also have doubts that Richard would, King or not, have received a Christian burial especially as he was defeated in battle and unlikely to have been granted much mercy by the victors. Apparently the team at Leicester University considered it unthinkable that he did not. Any thoughts on this?

The historical records, patchy though they are, suggest he was handed to the Grey Friars for burial. His grave seems to have been known until the Reformation, when the Priory was demolished. A later writer began the story that Richard's bones were dumped in the river (of course it wouldn't have been his bones, but his body); it seems that was after the 16th or 17th Century writer has failed to find Richard's grave - but it seems he had been looking at the site of the Black Friars Priory anyway.

[BBMmk2]

The historical records, patchy though they are, suggest he was handed to the Grey Friars for burial. His grave seems to have been known until the Reformation, when the Priory was demolished. A later writer began the story that Richard's bones were dumped in the river (of course it wouldn't have been his bones, but his body); it seems that was after the 16th or 17th Century writer has failed to find Richard's grave - but it seems he had been looking at the site of the Black Friars Priory anyway.

yes thats true. What a pity.

I have heard that York dont want him now, so resting assuired at Leicester?

[jean]

They've just been talking about this on Today in Parliament - a Tory MP (whose name I didn't catch) said he was buried by the Greyfriars and so the present car park must once have been consecrated ground.

He also said that while Richard should have a Catholic burial, it should be according to the Sarum rite, which, as he had been advised by his friend Rees-Mogg junior (who takes the whip from the Pope) is quite different from what the Church uses these days which is (according to R-M) the Tridentine rite.

I don't know where R-M has been for the last half century.

How strange. I know nothing of the change to these rites, but there presumably was a reason and the change resulted in an improvement (otherwise why do it at all?).

Put as simply as possible: the first big change to the liturgy came with the reforms of the Council of Trent, which imposed the Roman rite instead of national rites such as the Sarum rite used in this country. One feature of the Sarum rite was its extensive use of tropes (the insertion of extra phrases into, say, the Kyrie, as here) and Sequences. Most of these disappeared, and the chant, which had its own particular variants, was regularised too.

The Tridentine (from the Latin for Trent) rite remained essentially unchanged until Vatican II, when many of the original texts were changed, and all kinds of more or less horrible vernacular translations were introduced. The idea that all this was any kind of improvement will cause hollow laughter among Church musicians.

I have never heard a Sarum Requiem mass, but I know that the modern Requiem is a poor thing compared to its Tridentine predecessor.

It has lost the Dies Irae for a start, which was probably felt to have been a bit too full of hellfire, but is too beautiful to have been thrown on the scrap-heap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsn9LWh230k

If I were Richard, I would insist on a Dies Irae, wherever I was going to be buried.


.

[Pabmusic]

Put as simply as possible: the first big change to the liturgy came with the reforms of the Council of Trent, which imposed the Roman rite instead of national rites such as the Sarum rite used in this country. One feature of the Sarum rite was its extensive use of tropes (the insertion of extra phrases into, say, the Kyrie, as here) and Sequences. Most of these disappeared, and the chant, which had its own particular variants, was regularised too.

The Tridentine (from the Latin for Trent) rite remained essentially unchanged until Vatican II, when many of the original texts were changed, and all kinds of more or less horrible vernacular translations were introduced. The idea that all this was any kind of improvement will cause hollow laughter among Church musicians.

I have never heard a Sarum Requiem mass, but I know that the modern Requiem is a poor thing compared to its Tridentine predecessor.

It has lost the Dies Irae for a start, which was probably felt to have been a bit too full of hellfire, but is too beautiful to have been thrown on the scrap-heap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsn9LWh230k

If I were Richard, I would insist on a Dies Irae, wherever I was going to be buried.


.

What an interesting post. Thank you, Jean.

[JimD]

I did also have doubts that Richard would, King or not, have received a Christian burial especially as he was defeated in battle and unlikely to have been granted much mercy by the victors. Apparently the team at Leicester University considered it unthinkable that he did not. Any thoughts on this?

Somehow seems unlikely. In the religious society of that time it was surely one thing to kill a King in battle, and quite another egregiously to come between him and his/your God.