I really feel as though some very odd decisions have been made during this process, especially in regards to the procession. It's true, there's not a lot of precedent for the reburial of a crowned monarch*, but it just seemed very...tossed-together, sometimes. Like they weren't sure what they wanted to/should do, "given his reputation," so they chose the option that might attract the least negativity. It just didn't quite seem all-together-all-together.
I suspect there may have some hesitation about putting too much on for a king with such a dubious historical reputation, so long reviled as a villain and childkiller. But as far as historical 'truth' goes, much of what we 'know' of Richard III is utterly groundless - and should have been irrelevant anyway. We're talking about the bones of an English king - he should have received as much dignity and respect as he would have had had he been king when he died, or if a current member of the royal family died.
It was just all a bit half-hearted in the end, and I was disappointed. It's not like the long-lost bones of English kings and queens turn up every day!
I've read several pieces that attribute Her Majesty's decision not to attend to the reputation/controversy Richard still has/brings up, but I still thought it weird that the RF didn't do more. Not that I think badly of the Countess of Wessex -- it just seemed off that no one of the Blood came. But perhaps any of them coming would have seemed too controversial, and the Countess attending would look like "we care, but we understand the concern over his legacy?" But then that brings up the question of "does our historical perception trump the fact that they ruled?" I don't think it'll settle sooner rather than later. And I do wonder what the Richard III Society thinks
( ... )
Comments 12
*Though I could be wrong.
Reply
It was just all a bit half-hearted in the end, and I was disappointed. It's not like the long-lost bones of English kings and queens turn up every day!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment