24 Hours In Leicester

If you are mainly interested in history, I would suggest something from the Jewry Wall museum, The Guildhall, The Church of St Mary de Castro, and the Castle Gardens. Maybe a stroll up New Walk (one of the oldest pedestrian streets in the UK) and a visit to the museum there which amongst other things has a world-class collection of German Expressionism. I presume although you have not mentioned it that you will also be going to the RIII Visitor Centre.

All of the above seems to be a secret to Rick Steves as he scoots right on by the English Midlands ....

There are many hotels in the centre, but maybe for its historic nature I'd suggest The Grand Hotel on Granby Street, now part of the Mercure brand about 5 mins walk from the railway station . Rooms are being modernised, but there may still be a faded edge here or there. You can stay on the site where RIII had his last night, but it wasn't a Travelodge back then!

We want to see the tomb of Richard III (He didn't kill those boys, by the way).

Are you the same crew who told us for years he didn't have a problem with his spine?

Marco has covered the main highlights - the others such as the National Space Centre and the Battle of Bosworth are further out of town and easier by car.

Abbey Park including Leicester Abbey is worth it of you have the time and the weather is good.

Yes I tended to stay in the centre.

Leicester is also home to the National Gas Musuem. Apparently it has the largest, most representative and most significant holding of material related to the gas industry, its application and effects upon society, probably anywhere in the world'. It is more interesting than it sounds actually. Well at least to me.

When you go into the cathedral (a very recent cathedral, by the way) you can't miss it. I was seriously put off by all the advertising and banners, etc. for the new grave. And you certainly can't miss the tomb.

Next to the cathedral is a halfway decent shopping mall.

It is a bit of a journey from the station and there are not convenient buses.

The "New Walk" (which is anything but new) is a nice walk nearly between the station and the cathedral.

The cathedral is relatively new as a cathedral (1927) but the building itself dates back to 1086, replacing a previous Saxon church.

Leicester had a bishop for nearly 200 years but he fled south to Dorchester upon Thames in 870 and was never re-established after the Danes were kicked out by Lady Æthelflæd's army.

Five medieval churches remain standing; besides St Martins's Cathedral and St Mary de Castro there is St Nicholas’, St Margaret’s (just outside the old town walls) and All Saints (closed).

One which is lost is the Church of the Annunciation where Richard III's body was on public display. Nothing survived the dissolution of the monasteries except part of the crypt now situated inside the Hawthorn Building of the De Montfort University. This is now open to the public as part of the museum of DMU (until recently it was a computer laboratory!).

Think you have about a week's worth of stuff to choose from ...

Melsmith1962 -----
Not me. I've never posted anything about Richard's spine. But Richard had no reason to kill those boys. Parliament had already declared him king, and the boys were no threat to him or his reign. Henry, on the other hand, had every reason and every opportunity to murder the boys.
For Richard to have killed those boys would have been foolish. And if there was one thing that Richard was not, it was foolish.

Keith...
I'm reminded of what the council if the city of York put in their published record after the battle of Bosworth:
"This day was our good king Richard piteously slain and murdered; to the great heaviness of this city."

Richard III was very popular in the north having been his brother's lieutenant there for much of Edward IV's reign. That York would record his death such, and with in the aftermath of the battle the sucession open for question is not that unusual.

As for the princes in the Tower, that Richard III could be both a good king and have had the princes killed is not in conflict in late Medieval monarchy, especially in the context of the Wars of the Roses. They were the biggest thread to his position, bigger than their sister, whose husband based his claim partly through her.

They were last seen in the Tower when Richard was on the throne and at a time of relative peace before Bosworth Field. It is true however that we are still trying to find the real Richard through Tudor propaganda, but for the Tudor propaganda to have worked it needed some kernel of truth with in it.

So in my view and in the balance of probabilities it was under the orders of Richard III that Edward V and Richard, Duke of York were murdered.

We just returned a month ago from England and did go to Leicester to see the Richard III tomb and the visitor center. IT WAS FANTASTIC! While we were trying to find the New Walk museum, a young man directed us to it. We told him we were there to see things about Richard III, and he said there were many in the town who were offended because they believed Richard III to be a murderer and he shouldn't be getting the good publicity. Very close to the visitor center, by the way, is a gelato shop that is fantastic. We totally enjoyed our visit there, but we had a car.....I don't recommend driving there!!

Was he now feeling threatened and guilty?

Probably quite the reverse. Henry VII was always a bit paranoid, which is not that surprising given how he achieved the throne and the century prior to that, and paranoia does appear to be a Tudor dynastic trait.

But in the first years of his reign he was insecure, Scotland, Burgundy etc all backed Yorkist claimants and pretenders. Mainly to see what they could get from a weakened England, and an untried dynasty. In the second half he had married his daughter in to the Scottish Royal Family, which has given him dynastic legitimacy, the Stewart dynasty having two centuries by that point to the Tudors barely a decade, got a marriage alliance with the new superpower on the block - Spain, and so was much more secure. He could start to deal with rivals more ruthlessly, especially if they were refusing to go away. Warwick and Warbeck did not get executed for claiming the throne, it was for escaping from the Tower.

As for the comments another poster heard that Richard III was a murderer. Well, he was a medieval king, and as much as this is my favourite part of history, it came with the territory. It is quite possible under the 'rules' of medieval kingship to be both a good or great king and quite brutal in the achievement and exercise of power. We want to judge the past with the standards of today and the figures of the past fail. By the standards of today both Richard III and Henry VII would be serving life.

Their is an infant school for children aged 4-8 in Leicester named after King Richard. So not all there thought he was a child murderer otherwise it would hardly be appropriate. It is presently sited just off King Richards Road.

Ah, there are plenty of schools named for Henry VIII, two American states for Elizabeth I both of whom used the judicial process for their own, heh hem, 'purposes'.

And when I get £20 notes from the hole in the wall, they often have on them a picture of a man who actually killed someone in a church, King Robert I. He still did it and Robert is still one of my historic heroes. Henry II of England still half ordered the murder of Thomas Beckett. Henry II is another, though his wife even more so, Eleanor of Aquitaine.

The past is a foreign country.