Gordons secures judicial review for Richard III's descendants

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (26)

  • What an utter waste of the court's time.

    If we ever needed an example of why judicial review needs a serious re-think then it is this sort of frivolous nonsense.

    At a time of austerity it is absurd to be wasting public money arguing over where someone who died half a millenium ago should be buried.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't live in either Leicestershire or Yorkshire. As a tourist, it would be easier for me for them to be in York (as Leicester is a place I prefer to avoid visiting).

    However prior to these bones being discovered, York didn't celebrate its connection with the hunchback King Richard. Indeed, I think it deliberately played down its links.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The decision is correct. We are dealing with the remains of a King of England. The MoJ clearly did not think through the issues involved and I think it right and proper for a national debate to take place. One of the things I would like to know is why Westminster Abbey or St George's Chapel, Windsor haven't been considered. In addition, Richard III was shamefully treated by Henry VII (who paid £10 for a memorial - penny pinching old so-and-so) and Henry VIII (money grabbing old so-and-so) so what price a more appropriate reburial!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tell me is all the other law so boring that all these words have been written about what exactly? The dead do not have feelings neither did his descendants otherwise they would have sought him out before now wouldn't they. Personally then I favour somewhere half way up the M1. What's the matter with you all - obvious really.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I blame Margaret Beaufort. Didn't teach her son any respect.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The last sentence of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave's Order reads:
    "Skeletons to be exchanged 1 week before the substantive hearing"
    thus inadvertently resolving the entire case provided that Plantagenet Alliance can find one by then.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon @ 11:36: "However prior to these bones being discovered, York didn't celebrate its connection with the hunchback King Richard. Indeed, I think it deliberately played down its links."

    York is home to the Richard III museum...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gladiatrix:"

    "Richard III did state he wished to be buried in York."

    That is simply a false statement. There is no document or proof whatsoever.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a waste of time and money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Leicester is an entirely sensible place for him to be buried as that's where he was originally buried and the closest city to where his death took place. No-one complained that he was buried there until his remains were discovered.

    Rather than try to change history to what we would like it have been we should just keep it simple and bury him nearby - ie at Leicester Cathedral. Surely there are more important things to spend our time and money on?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (27)