An Epitaph for King Richard III

The Special Correspondent has forwarded to me the latest online Newsletter from the College of Arms, which had the following article about what appears to be the epitaph from the King's original tomb in the Greyfriars. The links about the recent service of reburial at Leicester cathedral are also well worth looking at as they put it in the context of recent research on such reinterrments in the late middle ages :

On 26 March 2015 King Richard III was reinterred in a specially-constructed tomb in Leicester Cathedral, in a service in the presence of Their Royal Highnesses the Countess of Wessex and the Duke of Gloucester, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and other distinguished guests. The College of Arms, founded by Richard III in 1484, was represented in the procession and service by Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms, and Peter O'Donoghue, York Herald. Some information about the reburial service can be had here and here.

Illustrated is an image from a College of Arms manuscript, showing an epitaph for Richard III. It is in the hand of Thomas Hawley, Clarenceux King of Arms, a herald between 1509 and his death in 1557. The epitaph would seem to come from the original tomb of Richard in the Franciscan Priory in Leicester, erected by Henry VII. It makes reference to the latter's piety and generosity, whilst hoping that the reader will pray for Richard on account of his offences and thus lessen his punishment.

 Image and text: College of Arms

The last sentence is particularly interesting, being further evidence of King Henry VII's Christian charity - which may not be the traditional image of him, but one that needs to be considered.

More on the reburial of King Richard III

Whilst we are on the subject of the reburial of King Richard III the Special Correspondent, who has a knack of getting everywhere, received one of the balloted seats for the service in Leicester Cathedral.

He has forwarded to me this tweet about the day from King Richard III (clearly he is in a grave with all mod cons) (@KRIIILeicester)26/03/2015 9:50 am Guests starting to arrive #richardreburied pic.twitter.com/fVtz5zMp0s

He also sent me this link to an article in the New York Times about the events in Leicester, giving an external observer's view of the ceremonies, and which can be read here.

Finally he has sent me this link about the reinterment which can be viewed here.

Reburying King Richard III - a sensible decision

I was pleased to hear on the radio last night that the High Court has ruled that there is no case for intervention in the matter of interring the remains of King Richard III in Leicester cathedral. Given that he has lain in the city since 1485, although lost from the 1530s until a couple of years ago, it seemed a perversely sentimental idea to move him now to York. In that sense he should now be left in peace - though whether he is out of Purgatory is presumably beyond the competance of the High Court or the Plantagenet Alliance

There is a BBC News report on the court case here,and another piece from them about the continuing debate about the bones and their authenticity here. From what I have read I would have though  the evidence as conclusive as could be wished as to the identity of the skeleton.

As I have commented prieviously, there remains the question as to the liturgy for the reburial. Leicester is an Anglican cathedral, but King Richard III died a Catholic. Doubtless the Leicester Greyfriars celebrated Mass for him at the time of his burial, but one suspects he may need quite a few Masses saying for him. As Desmond Seward points out in his book about him Richard III: England's Black Legend the King was anxious to placate the soulds of his victims with requiems.I gather when he was Bishop of Nottingham the now Archbishop of Liverpool offered to celebrate a Requiem for the King at the time of his reburial. Pontifical Sarum Requiem for a Monarch anyone....

The proposed tomb for King Richard III

The authorities at Leicester cathedral have now made public their plans for a tomb for the bones of King Richard III. That is, of course, assuming that his remains stay in Leicester and are not buried elsewhere as some want, and claim that he would have wanted, as I commented on the other day. The cathedral's proposals can be seen here.

The design is quite striking, and I suppose quite modern. It is perhaps not especially in the style that the King himself or his contemporaries might have expected. No doubt this story is going to run and run - should King Richard be buried in Leicester or elsewhere, what about the tomb design, never mind the liturgy when he is reburied....

King Richard III causing trouble again

I see from the BBC website article which can be read here, as well as from various newspapers, that the dispute over where to bury the remains of King Richard III has now reached the courts. I think the Judge wise in what he says.

There is no evidence I can think of that Richard ever wanted to be buried in York before, and still less after his accession to the throne. His Queen Anne lies at Westminster, and the ambitious plans for a college of chantry priests prove nothing conclusive to my mind - as Desmond Seward pointed out in his book on the King (one by a man previously pro-Ricardian who changed his mind and concluded that King Richard was guilty as, largely, charged) Richard was very prone to establish chantries for those whose deaths were or could be taken to be his responsibility. He appears to have wanted to be sure they were indeed resting in peace.

In my opinion Leicester is the right place for his remains - he has been there since 1485 and a dignified new tomb in the Anglican cathedral is a rather better place for a King of England than under a car park.

There is now the risk that the remarkable technical achievement of recovering and identifying the King's remains together with all the genuine historical interest and insight that has generated is going to be obscured by groups or individuals pursuing their own idiosyncratic agendas.

Re-burying King Richard III

In a comment on my post The King under the car park a friend asked me my views as to where the newly identified bones of King Richard III should be buried, and whether, as some want, he should have a state funeral.

Given that his bones have been in Leicester since 1485 it seems reasonable to leave him there, and, as the proposal stands, to bury him in the city's Anglican cathedral. The cathedral already has a modern ledger stone in memory of him, and the Greyfriars site is in the parish.

 

Leicester Cathedral 

The building is medieval, but much restored, and the tower and spire date from 1862

Image:cathedralexhibition.co.uk

I am not sure where the idea that he wanted to be buried at York comes from - I doubt if it is at all accurate. Queen Anne was buried at Westminster, but where King Richard himself thought he might be buried is unclear. Westminster is likely, but both his brother King Edward IV and King Henry VI are at Windsor - though for differing reasons he might not have wanted to be with them.

The present memorial  placed in the choir of the cathedral in 1980

Image: calmaxinengland.blogspot.com

Whatever was done with his interment in 1485 - he rather looks to have been bundled into his grave - King Richard has had a funeral already.

A State Funeral has, I gather been ruled out by the Queen, and to hold such an event would, frankly smack of  a stunt, though some peopel writing in the press, such as Andrew Roberts, appear to favour such a thing. As others have pointed out there remain unresolved issues as to how King Richard came to the Crown, and of various of his actions in respect of relatives, erstwhile friends and opponants. You do not have to go from not doubting the version of his career presented by Shakespeare in a play a century later than the King's death to believe the more extravagant claims of his modern partisans, who manage, at times, to present him as a virtual candidate for canonisation.

The proposed form of service at the reburial in the cathedral next year is an ecumenical one. Now this does raise issues. Ecumenism was not a big issue for King Richard III or his contemporaries. Leicester cathedral is part of the established national church, but Richard was a Catholic - and he would expect Catholic Rites. Given Leicester's Lollard tradition in the preceding century he might have been very cool towards "ecumenical" services with their successors.

Given that the cathedral is part of the national body established by his great-nephew in the 1530s I imagine some sort of compromise liturgy is inevitable. The unknown sailor from the Mary Rose received a Sarum Requiem in the Anglican cathedral in Portsmoth, but in 1545 the country was not in communion with Rome.  A deceased fifteenth century King does deserve the liturgies and practices he would have known. That would mean a Requiem - and as Desmond Seward points out in his book  Richard III; England's Black Legend, this was a man with a strong penchent for establishing requiems for the departed, including those for whom he might well be held accountable for their deaths.

Despite what Cranmer says in the BCP there does not appear, acording to the latest thinking, to have been a seperate Lincoln Use, but rather a local varient on Sarum in the diocese in which both Bosworth and Leicester lay. So a Sarum Requiem celebrated by a Catholic seems to be called for, or at least a modern OF or EF Requiem. I have heard that Bishop Macmahon of Nottingham has expressed his willingness to celebrate a Requiem for King Richard III. As the Bishop is a Dominican maybe a traditional Requiem in the Dominican Rite would be suitable.

On a different point, it is noteworthy how much interest has been raised by the discovery of the King's skeleton. That must be good for encouraging awareness of the fifteenth century in the wider public.