You now can vote in a poll about the new tomb design for King Richard III’s grave in Leicester Cathedral, if you like the newly revealed design or not:
- Leicester Mercury: Richard III: Final tomb design revealed, by Peter Warzynski (18.06.2014)
(The poll is in the right side bar of the page next to the article.)
For that the poll is posted by a Leicester based newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, the result so far is astonishingly clear.
The team involved in the design of King Richard III’s tomb described the design using the highest praise.
(I must admit, I was wondering a bit, what they would have said when the stone tomb really would have a ‘design’. But perhaps then the design would speak for itself and would not need so many words to explain its not so obvious meaning.)
But I don’t want to withold the explanation of the carved cross design of the tomb from you, which was revealed at the press conference on Monday, 16.06.2014.
- University of Leicester (YouTube): Richard III – The Tomb Design Press Conference by UniversityLeicester (June 17, 2014) – Video of the press conference, where the planned tomb design for King Richard III’s burial in Spring 2014 was revealed:
Trying to imagine the ‘light’-design of the tomb from a practical viewpoint, the question remains with me, when the sun in the East would stand high enough to take effect on the carved tomb and reveal the intended light reflection representing resurrection. But perhaps King Richard III is not meant to …
The Cathedral of Leicester announced the new tomb design for King Richard III today and revealed the approximate time of his burial:
To be honest, I am a bit ‘underwhelmed’ by the new design, because in my opinion now even the previously good parts of the tomb design are gone.
To compare, the Leicester Mercury has the picture of the first draft of the design in this article:
Richard III: New tomb design revealed today, by Peter Warzynski (16.06.2014)
What strange design competition is that to remove all elements people so far liked about the design and leave only the parts people did in major parts not like?
It is a strange method of the Cathedral of Leicester and a really difficult to understand way to estrange even the remaining supporters for Leicester Cathedral.
Perhaps the black stone beneath the tomb is meant to significantly differentiate the tomb design from a white chocolate brick.
But why the circle beneath the tomb, which in my observation had been majorly supported and liked in comments about the first revealed tomb design, now is eliminated as well, is a mystery to me. Except, that it is much easier to lay this rectangular stone floor design and not having to integrate a circle into its midst. Cheaper now, when already such additional expenses have been spent on a new tomb design.
I would not criticise the Cathedral so much for this design, if there had not been a previous tomb design, with well based references to the King’s life and even more convincing, with local materials King Richard III would have known and intended to be done by rare and talented hand-craft artists. In addition, even the payment had been secured for this very first design the Cathedral declined, because they initially had only wanted a stone slab in the floor.
So the necessity to accrue further expenses for this indistinct non-entity of a design for the tomb really is beyond my understanding.
In a way, Leicester Cathedral really must be angry about getting King Richard III or at least with the Richard III Society, whose members had commissioned and intended to finance the very first design.
Or how should that new tomb design be interpreted?
At least, the designer must somehow be angry with the king or does not want to put too much attention to him and his life, to only show minimalistic references.
One reason why I just so strongly don’t like this tomb design is, because I had visited stone pits, where the prepared stones look the way the tomb does.
Raw material prepared for the breaking…
Now, you can surely see an analogy that King Richard III had been broken in the Battle of Bosworth and his broken body had been transferred to Leicester.
But to see him as raw material is a strange interpretation of his life. And to break him with a holy cross is a picture the designer really has to explain to me to make me believe in its religious relevance or sensibility.
To excuse this poor design as 21st century based, I would argue that even the 21st century can do better…
Please feel free to discuss your opinion about the tomb design here. All opinions are welcome!
The one above is just my interpretation of the design, which unfortunately is not a favourable one, though I had tried hard to remain open-minded for the problems of the Cathedral of Leicester.