Well Shakespeare's villain is certainly a memorable character - i explained myself badly
Had it not been for the death or disappearance of the Prince's, the upsurge of interest in Richard in the 20th Century due to certain books and the PMK biography (with its numerous errors) that in turn sparked a wider interest in Richard then a King who reigned for such a short period would be remembered as a bit of a footnote.
I would be very wary of surveys of public opinion they generally are based on pretty low sampling and those people who vent or sign petitions are usually not the majority just a very vocal group.
The petitions over the burial naturally show strong favour to the idea of a York burial in part because there has been a lot of encouragement of the idea by MPs, council's , local historians and Richard III fans shall we say. Many think it is just more fitting some believe it was his wish and others just want their local area to win the row.
We still know very little about Richard's day to day life in his youth - his early childhood was probably spent with his mother at the many numerous York households (mainly Fotheringhay) - in the early 1460s he was certainly housed in London with his brother George - his wardship or care if you like was granted to the Kingmaker in the early 60s but Warwick had numerous homes across England and medieval nobility moved around their various assets a great deal - Richard certainly spent time in the north in Warwicks household but to say that Middleham was his childhood home as many claim is a stretch - by the time he was technically in Warwick's care he was already a teenager.
In the 1470s after his marriage - his division of the Warwick estates gained him significant assets in the north - and Edward naturally decided to make him the key political player in the north but he still went to war with the King in France etc. His main households were established in those northern bases.
Given the patronage he held it was only natural that local minor landlords, towns and cities looked to him as the best connected noble in the area for favours, help and patronage and like many nobles of the day he was happy to dispense it in return for local loyalty etc.
On his accession or usurpation which ever you prefer he was heavily reliant on his northern allies to hold the crown - his brother's household had been largely made up of people from the Midlands and South who resented Richard and his northern cohorts - so his continuing patr4onage to city's like York is not suprising - hence the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales in York etc.
As to his burial choice well York may have been what he intended but his chantry endowments could also have just been piety and generosity to a city that he believed was loyal to him - He buried his wife in Westminster Abbey not York.
A city that in the 1450s had been unswervignly Lancastrian in its loyalties.
I think to be honest you can argue for quite a few places - Middleham where he certainly spent a lot of time, Fotheringhay where he was most likely brought up, St George's at Windsor where his brother Edward IV was buried, or Westminster with his wife (which to be honest is where i think he shoudl have been put) as well as Leicester where he died or York Minster.
To be fair general archeaological practice is to bury an excavated body as near the original resting place as possible hence the decision by the universtiy to opt for the cathedral.
York Minster has made it catagorically clear that they are not intersted in the row and have no desire to have him buried there.
With reference publicity and tourism - given the level of interest wherever his remains end up i think it will pull in people the RII Society will be running trips from all over the world for a start and of course the reason Leicester is so keen they will also spend cash and viist the museum to Richard the city is now planning. It has never really been about Richard for his many good and bad qualities but about the revenue and unlike York which already pulls in millions of visitors a year Leicester could do with it more. Lol.
quote author=Janet Ashton link=topic=17261.msg525752#msg525752 date=1373406049]
I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.
He is one of the better-known Kings of England, and not just through Shakespeare's portrayal. It's inevitable that there would be a (huge) surge in interest when his remains were found, but the fact that they have been says in itself that people cared and were interested. No-one is fighting to have James II rediscovered as far as I know...:-)
I do know a lot of people both in York and also elsewhere around the county, country and world who have strong views on the burial issue - 80% in favour of York, the city to which he showed particular favour and treated as his "capital" for most of his adult life, and whose Minster he knew well. As it's not about what anyone in York or Leicester or anywhere else personally wants, surely? - or even about tourism (I wonder how many people visit a town to see a grave? don't the assorted museums to him and castles he lived in really have more draw?) rather, a question of finding an appropriate burial place for someone - else, why dig them up? The issue of Good or Bad doesn't even enter into it - we don't subject the other Kings of England to such an acid test; some of the worst tyrants in history made sure they had the most splendid grave (though there's a certain poetic justice in the spectacle of William the Conqueror bursting as he was stuffed into his tiny coffin!).
[/quote]
