Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => The Debating Chamber => Topic started by: pops on March 23, 2015, 13:31:31 PM
-
How can we, in times of austerity, justify the costs involved in re-burying Richard III? I'm sure he had no idea that he was under a car park and I doubt that it makes any difference to him that he has now been moved.
My opinion.....An absolute waste of money that could have been better spent elsewhere. This smacks of Historians self indulgence. Ok if the Historians are paying but I suggest that the cost will fall at the feet of the taxpayer.
I must admit to not knowing a great deal about this, so maybe someone can enlighten me a little and actually justify what I see as an unnecessary extravagance.
-
£ 2.50m they reckon the cost to be.
Outrageous !
-
I'm sure you must of heard me bellowing with rage in the direction of the radio when the BBC was reporting it. Indeed giving it the organisations full support and capabilities across all it's media outlets. It's bad enough I have to pay for his descendants and Thatcher's funerals , but this was ridiculous. And while we are at it, why not a paupers grave, him and his class thought it was good enough for those who had, or more particularly had lost everything!! What next a fond farewell for Clarkson?? >:( >:( >:(
-
I'm sure you must of heard me bellowing with rage in the direction of the radio when the BBC was reporting it. Indeed giving it the organisations full support and capabilities across all it's media outlets. It's bad enough I have to pay for his descendants and Thatcher's funerals , but this was ridiculous. And while we are at it, why not a paupers grave, him and his class thought it was good enough for those who had, or more particularly had lost everything!! What next a fond farewell for Clarkson?? >:( >:( >:(
Aye, sure you're a man after my own heart Tickets Bey !! It's absolutely deplorable that 500 or so years after the death of a man who kept his people in virtual serfdom, we, the public, not only have to support his useless descendants, including the adulterous wife of an adulterous future king, but have to foot the bill for a pile of ancient bones, which may, or MAY NOT , be those of a king ????
-
Our present Royal Family are not Richard's descendants. Richard was the last of the Plantagenets, whilst our Royals are descended for the Tudors.
-
Which branch of the Tudors are the Saxe-Coburg & Gotha family?
-
Especially for you.
DIRECT DESCENT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II FROM HENRY VII AND ELIZABETH OF YORK
Henry VII (1457-1509) & Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)
|
Princess Margaret Tudor (1489-1541)
m. James IV, King of Scotland (1473-1513)
|
James V, King of Scotland (1514-1542)
m. Marie de Guise (1515-1560)
|
Mary, Queen of Scotland (1542-1587)
m. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (1546-1567)
|
James VI King of Scotland (James I of England) (1566-1625)
m. Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway (1574-1619)
|
Princess Elizabeth (1596-1662)
m. Frederick V, Elector of Palatine, King of Bohemia (1596-1632)
|
Princess Sophia (1630-1714)
m. Duke Ernest Augustus of Brunswick-Luneborg, Elector of Hanover (1629-1698)
|
George I (1660-1727)
m. Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick and Celle (1666-1726)
|
George II (1683-1760)
m. Caroline of Brandenburg-Anspach (1683-1737)
|
Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales (1701-1751)
m. Augusta of Saxe-Coburg-Altenberg (1719-1772)
|
George III (1738-1820)
m. Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818)
|
Edward, Duke of Kent (1767-1820)
m. Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (1786-1861)
|
Victoria (1819-1901)
m. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha (1819-1861)
|
Edward VII (1841-1910)
m. Princess Alexandra of Denmark (1844-1925)
|
George V (1865-1936)
m. Princess Mary of Teck (1867-1953)
|
George VI (1895-1952)
m. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002)
|
Elizabeth II (1926 - )
m. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (1921 - )
-
Leicester reckon it will lead to a major touristic boost to their economy
-
I think that the amount spent on the funeral will pale into insignificance when the tourists start to come to the Cathedral and then spend money in Leicester.
-
Especially for you.
DIRECT DESCENT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II FROM HENRY VII AND ELIZABETH OF YORK
Henry VII (1457-1509) & Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)
you tell him jacqui.
|
Princess Margaret Tudor (1489-1541)
m. James IV, King of Scotland (1473-1513)
|
James V, King of Scotland (1514-1542)
m. Marie de Guise (1515-1560)
|
Mary, Queen of Scotland (1542-1587)
m. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (1546-1567)
|
James VI King of Scotland (James I of England) (1566-1625)
m. Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway (1574-1619)
|
Princess Elizabeth (1596-1662)
m. Frederick V, Elector of Palatine, King of Bohemia (1596-1632)
|
Princess Sophia (1630-1714)
m. Duke Ernest Augustus of Brunswick-Luneborg, Elector of Hanover (1629-1698)
|
George I (1660-1727)
m. Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick and Celle (1666-1726)
|
George II (1683-1760)
m. Caroline of Brandenburg-Anspach (1683-1737)
|
Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales (1701-1751)
m. Augusta of Saxe-Coburg-Altenberg (1719-1772)
|
George III (1738-1820)
m. Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818)
|
Edward, Duke of Kent (1767-1820)
m. Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (1786-1861)
|
Victoria (1819-1901)
m. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha (1819-1861)
|
Edward VII (1841-1910)
m. Princess Alexandra of Denmark (1844-1925)
|
George V (1865-1936)
m. Princess Mary of Teck (1867-1953)
|
George VI (1895-1952)
m. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002)
|
Elizabeth II (1926 - )
m. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (1921 - )
-
Jacqui, your argument re. hereditary royalty and the present family not being related to Richard 111 , but to the Tudors, would be perfectly valid, if not for the fact that Henry V11, (Tudor ), in order to " cement " his claim to the throne , married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and niece of Richard III, thus , in my mind, and that of many, many noted historians, keeping alive the Plantagenet line of royalty !! Ergo, the present lodgers in Buck House ARE descendants of the Plantagenet dynasty !! Simple really. ???
-
Lance, PLEASE check your history before making a berk of yourself . ;)
-
I think that the amount spent on the funeral will pale into insignificance when the tourists start to come to the Cathedral and then spend money in Leicester.
So who pays? Does Leicester pay considering they seem to be the only area that will benefit? Where exactly does the cash for this indulgence come from? Who decides that this is "value for money" when local services are being cut? 2.5 million would pay a lot of nurses wages.
-
Please don't bring the NHS into this discussion. It's a bottomless pit that will never be filled.
-
I think that charlie boy and that horse that he married, should foot the bill, no particular reason behnd my thinking, I hate the whole feckin' lot of them !!
-
Jacqui, your argument re. hereditary royalty and the present family not being related to Richard 111 , but to the Tudors, would be perfectly valid, if not for the fact that Henry V11, (Tudor ), in order to " cement " his claim to the throne , married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and niece of Richard III, thus , in my mind, and that of many, many noted historians, keeping alive the Plantagenet line of royalty !! Ergo, the present lodgers in Buck House ARE descendants of the Plantagenet dynasty !! Simple really. ???
I think what is in your mind Gordon, does not amount to a hill of beans in the Royal's minds. Buck House already said that the Queen would not attend the funeral as the Royal House's opinion is, she is not related in to Richard III and the official story from the Royals is they still consider Richard a usurper and a man who murdered the Princes in the Tower.... Now before you argue with me...this is not my saying and not my doing. It comes straight from the present Queen and was featured on the News this week after many questions from the public as to why the Queen was not at the Funeral. So, you better write directly to Her Majesty.
As to your insult to Lance, it is only your opinion, as I see it he is not a Historian neither are you, as for me I am only quoting the official line of descent as agreed by the Queen. Perhaps you think she is a "Berk" too?
-
Gordon
I think the last answer said - you are quite right but the royal family don't like to accept that. If you write a letter to the sitting Queen will amount to more than two words?
-
Why was he buried under a car park anyway - the car wasn't even invented back then.
-
Well judging by the thousands that turned out it looks like money well spent and looks like people were actualy interested.
Better spent on him than the millions of layabouts shafting the system :)
-
Well judging by the thousands that turned out it looks like money well spent and looks like people were actualy interested.
Better spent on him than the millions of layabouts shafting the system :)
But could be FAR better spent on the N.H.S., or the many amputee service men & women who have given their all for this country, and find themselves struggling to make ends meet once our leaders have had their pound of flesh from said hero's. Have YOU ever lived in Services married quarters, no ? didn't think so, some of this money could have gone a long way to improving living conditions for military families , some of whom live in almost slum conditions, but , bollox to them eh, let's blow it on burying a rickle of bones. Nice to see this government has at last got the priorities right . Colwyn, ; no, just the one word ; " RAUS " !! Jacqui, I HAVE studied World History , and that'll be an end to THAT particular old chestnut !!
-
Money for the burial has come primarily out of private donations and trust funds. The authorities at Leicester have constructed a £4 M visitors centee. It is estimated that this investment will bring in £150M / anum, and thus provide employment for people in years to come. I'd say that was money well spent.
-
I saw the crowds on the news yesterday queuing for over 1 hour just to file passed the coffin.
It looks like Leicester will be a big winner here as so many tourists will love the story of the King being found under a car park and being re-buried in the Cathedral.
Also, re, the old chestnut about the NHS. They will ultimately benefit from all the new employment and the taxes raised.
-
YAWN !! : :) ???
-
I think that charlie boy and that horse that he married, should foot the bill, no particular reason behnd my thinking, I hate the whole feckin' lot of them !!
YAWN! :D
-
I think that charlie boy and that horse that he married, should foot the bill, no particular reason behnd my thinking, I hate the whole feckin' lot of them !!
YAWN! :D
Sorry, I'm with GordonA. Present lot are a waste of space, with the odd exception.
I do think the royals of the past prove their worth, though.
And for what it's worth, in my view he should have been buried in Yorkshire. >:(
-
Yorshire didn't want him for five hundred years until someone else cared enough and did all the hard to find him.
Then Yorkshire saw the pound signs and common sense went out the window.
I do believe that Yorkshire should be compensated, with a 10 % cut of the increased revenues that will be generated
from the newly available council car parking space. Seems fair.
As for Andrew and Edward and their broods, they should be made to fund their own lifestyles. Parasites
-
i suppose everyone who wants rid of the Royal Family would like to see President Cameron... or come to think of it how about President Blair??
I am not a great Royalist, but I know they bring in a lot of money through tourism to our country and I am willing to hear alternatives to them??
-
A lot of the Royals are a tremendous asset to our country.
The ones I mentioned should be stripped of their titles and
their funding from the Royal purse.
-
I've thought long and hard about replying on this thread. First and foremost I feel it important that we remember the impact this small island nation has had in the eyes of the rest of the world. That is in no small due to our monarchy, much of whose costs are funded by the Queen these days.
Richard III is much reviled according to the history books, but as someone once said....history is always written by the winners, and thus the truth is not necessarily the true case. Much of Richard's ignominious reputation can be laid at the door of William Shakespeare and his interpretation in his play Richard III.
Whilst our present Queen has no direct lineage to the Plantagenet line, only through Elizabeth of York's marriage to Henry VII, it was fitting that she paid some sort of homage to a previous monarch.
With regard to the expense of Richard III's interment - as a previous poster said, much of the money has been raised through subscription, Leicester Cathedral have funding in place, plus the revenue from tourism. I would think the taxpayer would come off pretty lightly, despite what others on this forum think. To my mind, having been born at Middleham in North Yorkshire and a scion of the House of York, Richard should have been interred in Yorkminster.
My own view is that our current Monarchy is still a far better alternative to a United Kingdom/GB President, and would cost the taxpayer less money. Furthermore if there were more nurses and less grey suits running the NHS we'd be quids in.
-
Thinking long and hard resulted in a reasoned and sensible post - thanks.
-
I agree with you. This will give an a reason for people. who are interested in the history of Britain to visit the town
Another place I found moving to visit was the burial place in Peterborough of Katherine the first wife of Henry the eighth. There is a very good exhibition telling the whole story of a woman married for twenty five years to the King.