Author Topic: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III  (Read 7796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rosieposie

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
  • Eva Duarte de Peron, May 7 1919 - July 26 1952
    • View Profile
Beautiful faithful Nargony.
Thanks Emily!

Miranda:" Everything begins and ends at exactly the right time and place."
"Picnic at Hanging Rock" (1975) Movie.

Offline DNAgenie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2013, 05:07:55 PM »
I thank that the proposed case on behalf of Plantagenet descendants is ridiculous.

It is likely that a good proportion of the population of England are descended from Richard III's sister Elizabeth of York, so shouldn't they all be considered as petitioners in the case? From Queen Elizabeth II downward, as Elizabeth of York is her 14Xg grandmother? She's my 14Xg grandmother too, and I don't even live in England.

What's more if the petitioners use the argument of descendants being family they will be very hard put to find a judge to try the case, and jury to sit on the panel, as such people are also likely to be descendants, with a family interest in the matter. The case is good publicity for the city of York, no doubt, but not good in law.

Offline rosieposie

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
  • Eva Duarte de Peron, May 7 1919 - July 26 1952
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2013, 10:05:46 PM »
I think the burial should be at the university.   I don't know why I think that but it seems fitting.  Much better then being under a car don't you reckon?
Beautiful faithful Nargony.
Thanks Emily!

Miranda:" Everything begins and ends at exactly the right time and place."
"Picnic at Hanging Rock" (1975) Movie.

Offline DNAgenie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2013, 02:57:15 AM »
There is no proposal that the burial should remain in the car park, or go to the University. 

When the University of Leicester applied for permission to search for the grave in the car park, they were given permission to re-inter any remains in the nearby Leicester Cathedral. But when the remains were found and positively identified as belonging to Richard III, the town of York (Richard's home town) got into the act, and put forward the idea that York Minster was where Richard would wish to be laid to rest. So those are the main two contenders.

Offline Suzanne

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
    • View Profile
    • Carolyn Harris Royal Historian
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2013, 11:56:59 AM »
Here are some other lost royal graves: the Richard III controversy may set relevant precedents regarding their discovery, excavation and reburial

http://www.royalhistorian.com/5-lost-royal-graves/

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2013, 04:23:46 PM »
I thank that the proposed case on behalf of Plantagenet descendants is ridiculous.

It is likely that a good proportion of the population of England are descended from Richard III's sister Elizabeth of York, so shouldn't they all be considered as petitioners in the case? From Queen Elizabeth II downward, as Elizabeth of York is her 14Xg grandmother? She's my 14Xg grandmother too, and I don't even live in England.

What's more if the petitioners use the argument of descendants being family they will be very hard put to find a judge to try the case, and jury to sit on the panel, as such people are also likely to be descendants, with a family interest in the matter. The case is good publicity for the city of York, no doubt, but not good in law.

As the petitioners are asking for judicial review, the question of a jury is moot; one is not required; this isn't a criminal case. I believe that the Queen has also made it clear that she does not consider the reburial of a long-dead monarch to be a state matter, which covers her interest as a descendant of Richard's niece Elizabeth of York. Other members of the British Royal Family have given a view, however - the Duke of Gloucester asking only that Richard's remains be treated be respect, and Prince Michael implying that he supports moving the bones away from Leicester. Many collateral descendants simply don't care - so why should they be used in argument against those who obviously do?

These people are bringing the case as collateral descendants because they believe that they are the only people who can, in effect. But by implication they are acting on behalf of many thousands of people who support reburial in a place which might be considered more appropriate to Richard's life than Leicester, which represents his death and humiliation to them.  The case is not being brought by the city of York, which, by the way, is quite well known already. York just happens to be the site favoured by the overwhelming majority of people who have signed petitions and so forth. It's not even known for sure if this is feasible.

The issue here is that the burial site was decided upon by the people who were involved in the dig - namely, Leicester University, Leicester City Council and a small number of people from the Richard III Society, following a precedent used for *unknown* bodies found in a dig. There are different guidelines for known bodies, and best practice involves consulting relatives (even though this is not mandatory in skeletons over 100 years old) and using the known or inferred wishes of the person found. THis didn't happen here, and this is why the relatives are asking for review of the whole process involved in approving the dig and deciding on the burial place for the bones. The essential point is that Leicester has not "bought" the bones of Richard III, and this has been stated explicitly in Parliament: "finders is not keepers."

It is a very interesting case and it will be fascinating to see what happens to it. Those of you with an interest in the Romanovs should bear in mind that if people are reinterred where found, Nicholas would have stayed in Ekaterinburg, which many of you would consider inappropriate and unpalatable.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 04:28:35 PM by Janet Ashton »
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Offline DNAgenie

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2013, 04:52:18 PM »
Hi Janet.  I am not arguing against a judicial revue, but I am arguing that the grounds this group is threatening to rely on to get such a review are not valid in law. I too will be very interested to see what happens.  It is the appeal to the EEC Civil Rights legislation on the grounds that the group are relatives of the deceased (and possibly the only relatives, by implication) that I believe to be wrong, and possibly dangerous, not the idea that a review would be beneficial.

The question of relationship of a judge or judges, who would sit on the panel of a possible judicial review, might still apply if the petitioners go down that track, so they might just be opening a can of worms. That is a pity, as I'm all in favour of a review, but this opens the possibility of all sorts of obscure legislation being brought into the argument to bolster the case for one side or the other, and surely nobody wants that to happen.

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2013, 07:00:43 PM »
Hi Janet.  I am not arguing against a judicial revue, but I am arguing that the grounds this group is threatening to rely on to get such a review are not valid in law. I too will be very interested to see what happens.  It is the appeal to the EEC Civil Rights legislation on the grounds that the group are relatives of the deceased (and possibly the only relatives, by implication) that I believe to be wrong, and possibly dangerous, not the idea that a review would be beneficial.

The question of relationship of a judge or judges, who would sit on the panel of a possible judicial review, might still apply if the petitioners go down that track, so they might just be opening a can of worms. That is a pity, as I'm all in favour of a review, but this opens the possibility of all sorts of obscure legislation being brought into the argument to bolster the case for one side or the other, and surely nobody wants that to happen.

If their grounds aren't valid, the Review won't be granted. But how else are they to get a Review done? When the matter was debated in Parliament both "sides" were effectively instructed to go away and discuss. The Mayor of Leicester replied with a blank refusal.

I spent my teens in a small town where a King was murdered - nowhere near York or Leicester. The larger Cathedral town nearby has his remains. The place he died gets more visitors, for whatever reason. Leicester will always have the people keen to see where Richard died and where the famous "King in the car park" dig occurred. York will always have hordes of tourists anyway. I don't see why there is such reluctance on the part of Leicester City Council (who effectively refused to support the dig with a small sum of money and various permissions unless they got the bones) to even consider burying the king in a Cathedral and city he knew well and which had considerable symbolic importance to him in his own lifetime. The Mayor of Leicester seems to believe that because a University based in his town - but nationally funded, and working with additional funding from the Richard III Society and intellectual input from other bodies - worked on this dig he has "bought" the bones and has the right to flout the views of the other funders and interested parties as a whole - and that is not the case legally. So how to resolve this when in truth it's not of great importance to enough people to swing an election anywhere?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 07:05:17 PM by Janet Ashton »
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2013, 06:23:10 AM »
I don't think anyone has noted here that the Judicial Review has indeed been granted: -

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/king-richard-iii-permission-judgment.pdf

There was a great deal of cynicism here and elsewhere about the challenge and the status of the collateral descendants, but the central point has been vindicated: there should be wide consultation on the burial place; it should not simply be a stitch-up between a Town Council and a University department; they do not "own" the King's remains. I for one am very pleased that the collateral descendants were able to use their relationship to the King to bring this challenge. It's a shame it was necessary.

Leicester University et al clearly intend to go down fighting, despite the judge's comments on how his should not turn into an unseemly legal tussle, as they have ignored previous instructions/suggestions (e..g from Parliamentary committees) that they consult. We'll see what happens now.
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2013, 11:38:03 AM »
Thank you Janet, I was going to post this afternoon but you beat me to it.
It really is causing a bit of a stir and I love the judge's statement that he didnot want this to turn into the "second Wars of the Roses."
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2013, 11:44:25 AM »





These people are bringing the case as collateral descendants because they believe that they are the only people who can, in effect. But by implication they are acting on behalf of many thousands of people who support reburial in a place which might be considered more appropriate to Richard's life than Leicester, which represents his death and humililiation.



It is a very interesting case and it will be fascinating to see what happens to it. Those of you with an interest in the Romanovs should bear in mind that if people are reinterred where found, Nicholas would have stayed in Ekaterinburg, which many of you would consider inappropriate and unpalatable.
[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline Selencia

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Nadezhda
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2013, 01:42:12 AM »
I say open his wife's tomb and put him in with her.

Offline Kimberly

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2013, 01:48:30 AM »
Only problem with that is, they do not know where Anne is buried within Westminster.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline mcdnab

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Now there is a dispute on where to put the remains of Richard III
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2013, 02:20:37 PM »
And even if they knew the exact location Westminster Abbey is what is known as a Royal Peculiar unlike most Anglican Cathedrals The Dean is directly answerable to the Sovereign and as in the recent past consent to open tombs (particularly Royal ones) is usually refused.