Richard III judicial review kicks off at last

  • Print
  • Comments (17)

Readers' comments (17)

  • It is a great day for justice when a set of people pretending to be related to a long dead king get to go to court claiming they have a right to decide that the bones should be buried in a slightly prettier city.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon @ 9:41 - I think you've missed the point by a country mile there.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nope, I think Anon @ 9:41 pretty much nailed it. Still, all adds to the gaiety of nations.

    I couldn't help but notice that the MoJ are the only party to have instructed a silk. Glad to see Chris Grayling's fierce commitment to saving costs is going so well.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Madness indeed but this was Richard of York not some place in the East Midlands that could not care less and let's nor forget that York has a museum in the city walls dedicated to King Richard. Moronic to suggest he interred anywhere else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good point, John H, but you are being too generous to the MoJ. James Eadie QC is not just any silk - he is First Treasury Counsel, and the Government pays him a significantly higher hourly rate than they pay to other QCs. Not only that, because of the PCO in this case, they will not even be able to recover his fees from the other side if they succeed. This is a shocking waste of public money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There are several places where Richard III should be buried - York, Westminster Abbey, or the family tombs as it will be a tourist attraction that will bring in funds that should be used to maintain and repair the burial site chosen - if there are truly any living descendants, their wishes should be taken into consideration

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I cannot decide if this is a comedy, a tragedy or a farce.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So if Prince Charles died today, would he have to be buried in Wales?

    This could be a far reaching judgment...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • He was Richard of Gloucester actually. His father was Richard of York.

    York's claim is based on Richard's affinity with the city, long-acknowledged, not because of any title.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Born in the midlands, died in the midlands and buried in the midlands. He was NOT Richard of York, he was the Duke of Gloucester before becoming King. There are no records of his burial wishes despite what some want us to believe. Richard III has NO descendants. This small group seem to think they are royalty but have no more status than millions upon millions worldwide. The whole thing is a sham and, sadly, many gullible people have been taken in by the propaganda and have fallen for the media inspired denigration of the city of Leicester. 'York' is no more than a family title and not connected with the city of York. Prince Andrew is the current Duke of York so shall be bury him there ?? The York family mausoleum is in Fortheringhay, Northants. Richard III was buried in Leicester Greyfriars by the servants of the new King Henry VII who some 10 years later paid for a tomb to mark the grave. His nearest relatives had ample opportunity to move his remains in the following years of his death if they felt it appropriate but to now move them anywhere else on the whim of a 21st century mindset cannot be allowed to happen. The remains must stay in Leicester to preserve our history and heritage.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Richard III may have been 'of York', but when he asked them, in writing, to send forces to help defeat Henry Tudor (i.e. at Bosworth), they refused (and as mentioned above, he was Duke of Gloucester),
    Leicester supported Richard III,
    Richard III had to suppress the people of York who rioted against him,
    There are between 1 and 17 million people who are distantly genetically related to Richard III,
    Richard III had no surviving off-spring,
    Richard III left no documents or records, or quotes indicating where he would liked to have been buried. His wife is buried in Westminster Abbey. He may have expected to have been buried beside her,
    Richard III was given a funeral in Leicester and where he lay for 500 years,
    He is still dead.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • King Richard belongs in Leicester! He was discovered in Leicester and I didn't see the York city council pay for his exhumation, scientific analysis examinations (which are extremely expensive) nor dig up his grave. His immediate relatives (wife, son, brother, father, mother, etc. ) are all long gone. Its his immediate relatives that have a legal say in where there relatives can be buried . . . . not their distant decendents. So by law its Leicester who should keep the king. I think that Leicester will give King Richard a proper burial.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why does google news list this under "science"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As someone who has been fascinated by History since my school days (50++ years ago) and has many books covering the Wars of the Roses as they became known I agree completely with Rockhopper and find the idea that Richard, who was buried appropriately in a consecrated church, very probably the closest important one to the Bosworth battlefield, more than a little disturbing.

    As Rockhopper, quite correctly says, Richard was Duke of Gloucester, NOT York (his father held that title) and there is not a scrap of evidence to show where he indicated he wished to be buried. His favourite residence was Middleham Castle, so should this be where he is finally laid to rest.

    The idea that he should be moved to York Minster is, quite frankly, without the slightest justification, if anywhere has a claim then surely it's the Neville (York) Family mausoleum at Fotheringay where, I believe his father is buried.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All that is wanted here is for the man to be re-buried with due honour befitting his rank. Phillipa Langley was the person who KNEW where Richard lay and all she and other in sympathy have ever wanted is to see the King to lay in a place of reverence and to be properly buried without delay. By a contact/agreement, verbal or otherwise the remains should have been handed to her to place them in such a prayerful environment until it was decided where and when he would be interred.
    The actions of the U.L.A.S is disgusting and they alone have reneged on that agreement. The whole matter has been drawn out by those who only want to profit from the find. It's a disgrace that such a simple matter has been turned into a side show.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A Terry Clarke.
    The Minsitry of Justice license to exhume and rebury six skeletons is online and can be seen by anyone (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/burials-and-coroners/Application-to-exhume-human-remains.pdf). At the time the skeleton of RIII was found, they did not know it was him. If you look on the University of Leicester website they didn't expect to find him, and having found a skeleton with the right sort of injuries and scoliosis, it was necessary to confirm the identity of the skeleton. That takes time and is separate to where RIII will be reburied. That is [was] up to the CoE; and York Minster stated they don't have room for him.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps they should consider moving York to the location of Richard III's bones instead?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (17)