why do we go football and do nothing else?

[Never to the dark side]

For all those hoards that will be heading to Leicester on saturday can I suggest visiting where Richard the third was buried in the car park

There are no lunch time football games,so no excuse there.

If you are arriving by Train there is a "HOP" bus FREE OF CHARGE which will take you through the centre of Leicester and drops you off near where richard the third was buried

The "HOP" bus which runs every ten minutes can then take you towards the football ground

NOTE" the hop bus is in one direction only

Which means if you spot one after the game its heading towards the train station

[Steve Watts]

30 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

visiting where Richard the third was buried in the car park

That was a pain in the arse for locals back in 1485 mind, digging up the car park to bury him under it.  Took the council ages to get it back to standard.....

[supercidered]

56 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

For all those hoards that will be heading to Leicester on saturday can I suggest visiting where Richard the third was buried in the car park

There are no lunch time football games,so no excuse there.

If you are arriving by Train there is a "HOP" bus FREE OF CHARGE which will take you through the centre of Leicester and drops you off near where richard the third was buried

The "HOP" bus which runs every ten minutes can then take you towards the football ground

NOTE" the hop bus is in one direction only

Which means if you spot one after the game its heading towards the train station

Thanks for the idea.

After careful consideration, I've decided to go to the pub instead.

[City oz]

31 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

That was a pain in the arse for locals back in 1485 mind, digging up the car park to bury him under it.  Took the council ages to get it back to standard.....

There probably still digging it up each week to see if he's still there. Keeps them in a job I suppose.

[BUTOR]

Is it still just a car park, or have they turned it into a tourist attraction? Is there a shrine of some sort or will there just be a Ford Ka over the top of it? 

[Betty Swallocks]

This is the content I live for. 

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, BUTOR said:

Is it still just a car park, or have they turned it into a tourist attraction? Is there a shrine of some sort or will there just be a Ford Ka over the top of it? 

It's a really well done museum and exhibition, with a small room over the grave. That room has a glass floor so you can look down into it.

It is however, not a large museum. If all 3,300 of us go then there will be issues and some of us might miss the game. 

Still, if anyone did want a diversion tomorrow, it's well worth a visit.

[elhombrecito]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's a really well done museum and exhibition, with a small room over the grave. That room has a glass floor so you can look down into it.

It is however, not a large museum. If all 3,300 of us go then there will be issues and some of us might miss the game. 

Still, if anyone did want a diversion tomorrow, it's well worth a visit.

Does the museum have a car park?

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, elhombrecito said:

Does the museum have a car park?

It does, but it's sometimes tricky to find a free spot.

[Davefevs]

Reminded me of this sketch:

we even get a mention!

[Betty Swallocks]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It does, but it's sometimes tricky to find a free spot.

Is that because they’re all taken up by dead Kings? 

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Is that because they’re all taken up by dead Kings? 

It is. It's very difficult to persuade them to move.

[Bristol Rob]

32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's a really well done museum and exhibition, with a small room over the grave. That room has a glass floor so you can look down into it.

It is however, not a large museum. If all 3,300 of us go then there will be issues and some of us might miss the game. 

Still, if anyone did want a diversion tomorrow, it's well worth a visit.

Is it a pray-and-display?

[handsofclay]

Keep in mind if one does decide to visit his burial site that he was effectively a double child murderer. 

I understand that his position might have been in jeopardy had he allowed his 12 year old nephew, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard to live, but he was at the moment of their disappearance their guardian and they were killed on his watch undoubtedly on his orders so he could usurp the throne.

 

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

Keep in mind if one does decide to visit his burial site that he was effectively a double child murderer. 

I understand that his position might have been in jeopardy had he allowed his 12 year old nephew, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard to live, but he was at the moment of their disappearance their guardian and they were killed on his watch undoubtedly on his orders so he could usurp the throne.

Oooohhhh ...someone's been to the museum.

[Maltshoveller]

Richard the 3rd was a right sh#t 

Well thats what some cockney bloke told me

[johnbytheriver]

No that was Richard the Turd! (I'll get my coat)

[Reigate Red]

Me and Mrs RR are staying over to visit the museum (she refuses to go to the game though!) - unfortunately the cathedral is currently closed so you cannot visit the tomb of the car park king. Having been to Bosworth a few times (I used to live in Coventry) I am quite interested in this.

[Oh Louie louie]

On the subject of dead kings how many years ago did they find Richard the third under a car park in Leicester, they still haven't found his car I assume 

[Reigate Red]

7 hours ago, handsofclay said:

Keep in mind if one does decide to visit his burial site that he was effectively a double child murderer. 

I understand that his position might have been in jeopardy had he allowed his 12 year old nephew, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard to live, but he was at the moment of their disappearance their guardian and they were killed on his watch undoubtedly on his orders so he could usurp the throne.

 

Whether he was guilty of this is not proven. A good easy read is provided in a modern day (well the 1950's) assessment of the evidence in "The daughter of time". It's quite a short book so not too taxing. More info here -   The Daughter of Time - Wikipedia

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, Oh Louie louie said:

On the subject of dead kings how many years ago did they find Richard the third under a car park in Leicester, they still haven't found his car I assume 

It`s Leicester mate. Do you really think someone wouldn`t have twoced it?

[handsofclay]

2 hours ago, Reigate Red said:

Whether he was guilty of this is not proven. A good easy read is provided in a modern day (well the 1950's) assessment of the evidence in "The daughter of time". It's quite a short book so not too taxing. More info here -   The Daughter of Time - Wikipedia

He was the only one who stood to gain from their 'disappearance'. They were under his guardianship in the secure Tower of London guarded by his men. As I have previously stated I cannot totally blame him as had the Woodvilles gained the ascendancy (the family of the wife of Edward IV and obviously mother of Edward V) then he could easily have become yesterday's gravy. 

One of the reasons Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III at Bosworth was because of the enmity against Richard for usurping the throne two years earlier and killing the legitimate young King Edward V and his younger brother in the process. 

Since those days the Ricardian Society have striven hard to clear his name in a misguided romantic fashion of rewriting history. Even telling us that the popular image of Richard III having a deformity that in mediaeval parlance was called being a hunchback or crookback was simply a Tudor construct and he was nothing of the kind. Of course when his body was located it was discovered that he indeed had that deformity.

 

[Reigate Red]

16 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

He was the only one who stood to gain from their 'disappearance'. They were under his guardianship in the secure Tower of London guarded by his men. As I have previously stated I cannot totally blame him as had the Woodvilles gained the ascendancy (the family of the wife of Edward IV and obviously mother of Edward V) then he could easily have become yesterday's gravy. 

One of the reasons Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III at Bosworth was because of the enmity against Richard for usurping the throne two years earlier and killing the legitimate young King Edward V and his younger brother in the process. 

Since those days the Ricardian Society have striven hard to clear his name in a misguided romantic fashion of rewriting history. Even telling us that the popular image of Richard III having a deformity that in mediaeval parlance was called being a hunchback or crookback was simply a Tudor construct and he was nothing of the kind. Of course when his body was located it was discovered that he indeed had that deformity.

 

I'm no Ricardian but just interested in the history. The battle of Bosworth hung on William Staley's intervention and could have gone either way, history's view might have been very different if Stanley had sided with Richard.  I believe a lot of the Richard III enmity is possibly down to Shakespeare.

Caveat - I'm no historian 

[Norn Iron]

10 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Is it a pray-and-display?

As there isn't a body, just an empty grave, does it cost half a crown?

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, handsofclay said:

He was the only one who stood to gain from their 'disappearance'. They were under his guardianship in the secure Tower of London guarded by his men. As I have previously stated I cannot totally blame him as had the Woodvilles gained the ascendancy (the family of the wife of Edward IV and obviously mother of Edward V) then he could easily have become yesterday's gravy. 

One of the reasons Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III at Bosworth was because of the enmity against Richard for usurping the throne two years earlier and killing the legitimate young King Edward V and his younger brother in the process. 

Since those days the Ricardian Society have striven hard to clear his name in a misguided romantic fashion of rewriting history. Even telling us that the popular image of Richard III having a deformity that in mediaeval parlance was called being a hunchback or crookback was simply a Tudor construct and he was nothing of the kind. Of course when his body was located it was discovered that he indeed had that deformity.

 

But he also passed some decent laws during his brief stable monarchy early in his reign. Liberal reforms were passed and more were threatened. Including reform of the bail laws to make them more equitable, and reform of weights and measures to ensure a fairer and more stable economy. His early royal tour was and is still recorded as one that was successful.

One slant on it is that the reason such enmity was prevalent amongst the nobility is that Richard III was enacting laws that threatened that nobility's established hegemony over the poor. What price the murder of two children who may have grown to be even worse megalomaniacs and fickle thieves?

And yes. 

I have been to the museum.

[handsofclay]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

But he also passed some decent laws during his brief stable monarchy early in his reign. Liberal reforms were passed and more were threatened. Including reform of the bail laws to make them more equitable, and reform of weights and measures to ensure a fairer and more stable economy. His early royal tour was and is still recorded as one that was successful.

One slant on it is that the reason such enmity was prevalent amongst the nobility is that Richard III was enacting laws that threatened that nobility's established hegemony over the poor. What price the murder of two children who may have grown to be even worse megalomaniacs and fickle thieves?

And yes. 

I have been to the museum.

That is the dichotomy of Richard III he was actually, from the perspective of the poorer classes, a good monarch but he acquired the throne through the murder of his young nephews. 

You make some very good points that I cannot disagree with and as I have previously stated I think there was a very good chance he would've been bumped off had he not usurped the throne as the young Edward V would have likely sided with his mother, Elizabeth Woodville's family who were gaining power at court and were not great fans of Richard. We are talking medieval times here it was at times dog eat dog. 

As part of the process of trying to legitimise his actions Richard called into question Edward V's right to the throne stating that his father, Edward IV had offered marriage to someone before he married Elizabeth Woodville. (A bit like when Joe Bryan allegedly promised to join Aston Villa before getting a better offer from Fulham.) This was used as a means to state that the Woodville marriage wasn't legit and Edward V was thus a bastard. (Villa fans thought much the same about Bryan.) Therefore, Richard III was the rightful heir as Edward IV's only surviving brother, the other one having been earlier drowned in a barrel of Malmsey wine. 

Edward Tudor married Elizabeth Woodville's daughter, the sister of Edward V and his brother Richard to re-establish the connection as it were with the offspring of Edward IV, so really it was only Richard III and his supporters who ever questioned the legitimacy of Edward IV's children and noticeably he never did so while Edward IV was alive, otherwise he might've ended up in a barrel of pinot noir.