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.
