3:25 - Very strange seeing King Richard III's casket being carried in an automobile to his final resting place. But I guess it's to save time. It would take a loooot longer on a horse drawn carriage. I would love to have seen the funeral home director's face when told to create a funeral for Richard...
R.I.P. - KING RICHARD 111 AMAZING ASTONSHING!!!! WELL DONE EVERYONE INVOVLED IN THIS MOST UNUSUAL INDEED. YEP!! HISTORY IN THE MAKING FOLKS!!! GREAT STUFF!!! THANKS FOR THE POSTING. HAS PUT LEICESTER ON THE WORLD MAP!!!!!!!!!!! FROM(U.K.).
With hindsight, I think this funeral should have been a much bigger spectacle with many more armour plated knights leading the cortege. It would have looked amazing and had a bigger, British cultural impact. I'm sure Richard would have wanted lots of armoured soldiers making a bolder more statesmanlike impact.
People say he killed the two princes but I don't buy that for the simple reason he was ALREADY king, so they weren't blocking his path to the throne and he therefore had absolutely no reason to kill them.
He wasn't already king. When his older brother Edward iv died his nephew Edward v became king. As Edward v was only 12 Richard iii became lord protector, running the kingdom until his nephew was old enough to take on the duties of king. Then the king of England Edward v and his younger brother mysteriously disappeared conveniently making the lord protector Richard king. Coincidence? Probably not.
It's entirely possible he had them killed. Shortly after having them declared legitimate, Richard got into a feud with his brother's inlaws. He was legitimately concerned they might use his nephews to legitimize a revolt.
@Anh Thu I didn't comment on whether or not he was a good king, you can argue that it was the right decision to kill his nephews. I was mearly pointing out that he almost certainly did have them killed. Also just because you die on a battlefield doesn't mean you're necessarily a good king whose people love you.
As they grew the threat would have grew along with them. I never believed that Richard III had them killed. I just don't know anymore than anyone else what could have happened.
I agree with Nathan Graf . Richard should have been interred the way he suggests. Little Kiwi suggests some member of the Royal family should have been present. She spotted the Countess of Wessex. But, how good would it have been had the Prince of Wales and his wife been present for, after all, the present Queen graces the same throne as once did Richard . It's good to know that the Archbishop of Canterbury was present , if I ain't mistaken .
No. Not the same royal house. And if today's royals turn up, then the british army has to be the honour guard over someone they didn't swear allegiance to.
Though I think the ceremony was fitting and dignified, I find it distressing that Richard--however he may have been in life--is being used as a tourist attraction to make money for the city.
Please tell me what city doesn't use its history or historical features to make money...It is indeed this that keeps visitors flocking to the country. York itself is a prime example of this and London...so I don't actually get your point ??
mh605 So all those tombs within York Minster don't contain the remains of humans ??...The tours of crypts around the whole country are not based on human remains and a life that passed ??...The only difference is Richard was found in 2015...in 300 years people will be gathering around Queen Elizabeths tomb or burial grounds...its all the same
***** Have not been to York Minster and don't know about crypt tours. In general terms, people have to be buried somewhere and as long as no fee is charged to visit and pay respects, there's nothing wrong with that. Tours would be more suspect, in my opinion. But this seems to be in another category entirely because of the way it all happened. It's not like someone died, was buried and then later people come to pay respects; this time it seems that the body was desired and fought over for the express purpose of generating tourist dollars. I don't really know, since I'm in the US at some remove from the proceedings, but this is the impression I got from videos and news reports. Maybe, no matter where Richard was finally buried, it would have been impossible to avoid the commercial aspect but it did seem to run too much in that direction. (I also wondered why they did not bury him in York, where he was from, instead of in the place he died, to which he had no other connection except the battle he died in. Did not understand that. But again, I don't really know because I was at some remove from the controversy.)
wish he might have had a coffin fit for a king. After so much negative talk it is moving to see just how much the royals still mean to the the British people. I am American & this brought tears to my eyes. I didnt cry at my parents funerals. Richard 111 pulls at my heartstrings for some unknown reason. I need to plant a white rose bush.
Well, in fairness, the city tracked down and found his last remaining ancestor who conveniently happens to be a carpenter. He was asked to build Richard's coffin and in return, they invited him to the funeral. I am not making this up.
It's been a Hard Days Night alright for poor old Richard 3rd. And he's been working like a dog. At least in the Peter Sellers version; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zLEMncv140s.html
Should be a member of royal family, we have a Prince Richard of Gloucester, he could have been present, the remains of his late majesty King Richard should have been represented by his present relatives? But I suppose they did their best,
Dear Pukaar News, Very interesting report. I wonder if interview or just a few words with Philippa Langley might have been an important part of your reporting..?
Isn't it ironic, that he should be given this honour now. So long demonised & viewed as one of Englands worst monarchs, thanks in part to a brilliant propaganda campaign by the Tudors, which carried on into modern times. Now here he us getting the great honour.
