Son of York! Richard III descendants allowed to challenge Leicester burial

[oldironside]

A high court judge has given permission for descendants of Richard III to challenge plans to rebury the king's remains in Leicester rather than York, but counselled both sides against engaging in an "unseemly, undignified and unedifying" legal rerun of the Wars of the Roses. Richard's twisted and hacked skeleton was unearthed in a Leicester council car park last September, 527 years after he was killed at the battle of Bosworth Field and hurriedly buried in the church of the Greyfriars.

After the remains were identified in February as those of the last Plantagenet king, it was announced that Richard would be re-interred in Leicester cathedral.

The decision, however, did not go down well with the Plantagenet Alliance, which claims 15 descendants of relatives of the king as members. The alliance wants the remains buried in York, which, it claims, he regarded as his home.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/16/richard-iii-descendants-allowed-challenge-burial

Bury him in York. I mean, Richard of York. The clue's in the name. And, let's behonest, I donÄt think the Midlands did too much for him.

[Siwsan]

1. York is a magnificent city

Not sure if they have any 'top level' royals buried there. I'd vote to bury him there. I don't think he's been 'resting easy' in Leicester.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. It's all about the tourist pounds, now.

And Leicester has had its turn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. He was born in the Midlands, at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotheringhay_Castle

about 30 miles from Leicester.

[oldironside]

4. Fair enough.

It doesn't change the fact that his power base was in York.

I well remember the Duke Of Wellington's reply to the qeustion of wether or not he was Irish.

For my part, I was born in a certain corner of North East Hampshire, but I wouldn't be seen dead having my funeral there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Is it vital to celebrate his power base?

He used it to depose his nephew, after all, and is still prime suspect in his murder.

[oldironside]

6. I didn't say anything about celebrating his power base.

I merely point out that it's the logical place to bury him.

As I understand it there is no real evidence that he murdered the Princes in the Tower (Didn't channel 4 do a mock trial a few years ago and aquit him?) and even if he did, there are plenty of other English monarchs with innocent blood on their hands who are not only buried in splendid surroundings, but actively celebrated. In fact, it's difficult to find an English monarch who wouldn't have been sectioned under modern law.

[fedsron2us]

8. Deposition and murder had become common currency in the 15th century

Once the precedent had been set by Henry Bolingbroke turfing Richard II off the throne and then having him killed no monarch was really safe. Edward IV did the same to Henry VI and then his son suffered a similar fate at the hands of Richard III. Many of the people involved in these deeds were related by blood so I see no reason why Richard III should be deemed anymore wicked than his predecessors who seem to have been every bit as ruthless. Yet somehow they have avoided being turned into pantomime villains by history.

[oldironside]

12. Ah, but they didn't have England's greatest dramatist...

... writing lies about them.

Strange to think, but on some levels Peter Cook's portrayal is probably closer to the truth.

[fedsron2us]

7. In so far as is practically feasible people should be buried in accordance with their wishes

I do not believe there is an extant will for Richard III but there is some historical evidence to suggest that he did plan for his body to be interred in York as the Minster records show he planned several large chantry chapels to be built there to pray for his soul. In addition while Richard was born at Fotheringhay he spent most of his youth at Middleham under the care of the Earl of Warwick whose daughter he later married and he had long connections with the city of York.

It is highly unlikely that Richard would have chosen to be buried in the building that now acts as Leicester Cathedral since it was just a parish church in his day.

Any way it will be a matter for the courts to decide. They might simply rule that as a king of England he should be buried in Westminster Abbey along with with a lot of the other monarchs (nb - his wife Ann Neville is already interred there).

BTW it is by no means certain that any of the kings or queens are actually in their designated tombs. Pepys mentions in his diaries that Oliver Cromwell was rumoured to have ordered that a lot of the royal bodies to be moved (possibly to disguise his own resting place from returning monarchists). Certainly when they went looking for the location of the missing corpse of James I in 1867 they found that he was not with Mary Queen of Scots as expected but alongside Henry VII. Maybe they could put Richard III with those two.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Leicester University did the dig, the city council allowed their car park to be dug up

The cathedral is the closest church or cathedral to where he was buried (about 100m), and it's had a memorial to him since 1980.

But a Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "When applying for an archaeological exhumation licence, the applicant must state that the remains will be laid to rest at a suitable location.

"The licence we issued states that the applicant (the University of Leicester) would, no later than August 31, 2014, deposit the remains at Jewry Wall Museum or have them reinterred at St Martin's Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place.

"The precise location of reburial is now for the University of Leicester.

"This means that no one except the licence holder, i.e. the University of Leicester, can decide where the remains end up."

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-University-Leicester-decide-final/story-18077880-detail/story.html#axzz2KaueQjdd

Now that someone else did the work, York wants a tourist attraction.

[fedsron2us]

10. Where he is to be buried is yet to be decided

However, suffice to say that the mere fact of finding a body gives no one the right to claim possession of the remains.

In fact in law no one normally can 'own' a corpse

In this instance the court has merely ruled that the Secretary of State for Justice, the University of Leicester and the Diocese of Leicester have made decisions beyond their powers and that the matter requires further consultation

The point made by the judge I think is perfectly valid

He said the "core submission" of the alliance's case "is that the secretary of state for justice had a duty in law to consult 'relevant interests', including descendants, as to how, and where, the remains of Richard III should be reburied, but he failed to comply with that duty prior to issuing the licence or at any time thereafter".

The alliance, he added, had submitted that the "relevant interests" were the citizens of the UK who have an interest in the fate of the rediscovered body of a historically important anointed former monarch of the realm, the living collateral descendants of Richard III, and the wishes of Richard III himself "in so far as they can be ascertained or inferred".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/16/richard-iii-descendants-allowed-challenge-burial

If I was able to bet on the outcome I would have a sneaking fancy that Richard III might yet end up in Westminster Abbey once Leicester and York have finished squabbling with each other..

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I don't see there's anything saying the decision was "beyond their powers"

The judge has said it is 'arguable' that they should consult widely. So he's allowing a judicial review to decide that argument. The review may yet say that the decisions so far are fine.

[fedsron2us]

13. Determing whether an authority has acted 'ultra vires' or beyond its powers

is precisely what a Judicial Review is designed to do.

The very fact fact that the judge has ruled that the matter requires further consultation means that the court thinks that may have happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Exactly - the court has not ruled that they made decisions beyond their powers

The court has ruled that it's arguable. The judicial review has not happened yet.

[dipsydoodle]

15. knick-knack paddywhack

There only bones. I don't see why all the fuss.