Richard III's family want his remains reburied in York

8:45am Monday 25th February 2013 in News By Press reporter

Richard III's family want his remains reburied in York Richard III's family want his remains reburied in York

The living descendants of Richard III today backed calls for his remains to be reburied in York.

The monarch’s 500-year-old skeleton was identified earlier this month after it was uncovered during an archaeological dig at a council car park in Leicester last year.

Campaigners have been calling for his remains to be reburied in York, as he had wished, instead of in Leicester Cathedral, as currently planned.

Today, nine of Richard’s descendants said the king, the last monarch of the House of York, should be buried in York.

They said in a statement: “We, the undernamed, do hereby most respectfully demand that the remains of King Richard III, the last Plantagenet King of England and our mutual ancestor, be returned to the city of York for formal, ceremonial reburial.

“We believe that such an interment was the desire of King Richard in life and we have written this statement so that his wishes may be fully recognised and upheld.

“King Richard III was the last King of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty which had ruled England since the succession of King Henry II in 1154.”

They continued: “We, the undernamed blood descendants, unreservedly believe that King Richard is deserving of great recognition and respect and hereby agree to dutifully uphold his memory.

"With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty’s representatives and voice.”

City leaders in York have said they will write to the Queen and the Ministry of Justice in a bid to get Richard’s remains returned to his “spiritual home”.

King Richard grew up at Middleham Castle in the Yorkshire Dales and visited York several times during his reign.

A petition calling for King Richard to be re-interred at York has been signed by more than 23,000 people.

But the Ministry of Justice has said it was the University of Leicester’s decision to make as they had been granted permission to exhume the monarch's body.

Today's letter is signed by Charles E Brunner (Richard’s 17th great nephew), Stephen Guy Nicolay (16th great nephew), Vanessa Maria Roe (16th great niece), Jacob Daniel Tyler (17th great nephew), Paul Tyler (16th great nephew), Raymond Torrence Bertram Roe (15th great nephew), Linda Jane Roe, (16th great niece), Eleanor Bianca Lupton (17th great niece) and Charlotte Jane Lupton (17th great niece).

Meanwhile, Raby Castle, the childhood home of Richard’s mother, Cicely Nevill, and his father Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, has also joined the debate.

A spokeswoman said: “It’s a lovely idea for Richard III to be brought to York. As the last Yorkist King it seems a fitting tribute.

“She survived most of her children and lived through times of great unrest, wars, sadness and treachery and the intrigue surrounding her children. We are now considering making more of her story for our visitors.”

Comments(35)

coldcoffee says...
9:03am Mon 25 Feb 13

So what? The accident of descent gives this random collection of individuals no say in the matter and no particular right to have their opinions valued above anybody else's. They are also, like many others, claiming a certainty about Richard's own intentions for his burial that simply is not there.

Report this post »

again says...
9:28am Mon 25 Feb 13

coldcoffee wrote:
So what? The accident of descent gives this random collection of individuals no say in the matter and no particular right to have their opinions valued above anybody else's. They are also, like many others, claiming a certainty about Richard's own intentions for his burial that simply is not there.
So you don't care about your ancestry?

They are hardly a 'random collection' after all and I expect they are all confident about their paternity after all this.

Report this post »

CHISSY1 says...
9:29am Mon 25 Feb 13

"Campaigners,activis
ts,nothing else better to doers,these must be good jobs,seems to be a lot of people doing it".

Report this post »

again says...
9:30am Mon 25 Feb 13

You can sign the petition here:


http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/38772

Report this post »

capt spaulding says...
9:30am Mon 25 Feb 13

CHISSY1 wrote:
"Campaigners,ac
tivis
ts,nothing else better to doers,these must be good jobs,seems to be a lot of people doing it".
Wonder what job you do Chissy1 ?

Report this post »

www.yorkstories.co.uk says...
9:32am Mon 25 Feb 13

Well said coldcoffee, in the first comment.

But when this 'wish' has also been endorsed by our elected representatives on City of York Council, it seems too late to halt this increasingly overloaded bandwagon.

"City of York Council’s campaign to honour the living wishes of England’s last Yorkist king", as they put it, in their official statement recently. (http://www.york.gov
.uk/press/article/10
71/support_for_richa
rd_iii%E2%80%99s_wis
hes_grows)

The campaign looks like it might be successful, but I don't believe it represents the wishes of the people of York who actually live here now in the 21st century.

James Alexander says in the same statement "we have a duty to represent the voice of local people". I think they've not heard the voices of those who, having carefully considered the issues involved, would prefer the remains to stay in Leicester.

But he's very easy to contact via Twitter, email, and presumably the other usual channels, as are our councillors and our MP.

Report this post »

CHISSY1 says...
9:40am Mon 25 Feb 13

capt spaulding wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
"Campaigners,ac

tivis
ts,nothing else better to doers,these must be good jobs,seems to be a lot of people doing it".
Wonder what job you do Chissy1 ?
"Retired engineer".

Report this post »

RingoStarr says...
10:54am Mon 25 Feb 13

CHISSY1 wrote:
capt spaulding wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote:
"Campaigners,ac


tivis
ts,nothing else better to doers,these must be good jobs,seems to be a lot of people doing it".
Wonder what job you do Chissy1 ?
"Retired engineer".
Obviously not a retired English Teacher!

Report this post »

Capt. Dobie says...
11:09am Mon 25 Feb 13

CHISSY1 wrote:
capt spaulding wrote:
CHISSY1 wrote: "Campaigners,ac tivis ts,nothing else better to doers,these must be good jobs,seems to be a lot of people doing it".
Wonder what job you do Chissy1 ?
"Retired engineer".
'Retarded' did you mean...

Report this post »

MarkyMarkMark says...
12:35pm Mon 25 Feb 13

"The living descendants of Richard III...."

As opposed to the dead ones?

Report this post »

Dave Taylor says...
12:55pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Strongly support this, together with all the other political parties in York. The Dean of York does the city a great disservice if she doesn't recognise the value to The Minster and the city. Sign the petition!

http://epetitions.di

rect.gov.uk/petition

s/38772

Report this post »

bloodaxe says...
1:30pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Dave Taylor wrote:
Strongly support this, together with all the other political parties in York. The Dean of York does the city a great disservice if she doesn't recognise the value to The Minster and the city. Sign the petition!

http://epetitions.di


rect.gov.uk/petition


s/38772
Who says that she doesn't ? It really isn't for the cathedral to get mixed up in a wrangle about the last resting place of R3.

Report this post »

kareng8 says...
2:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13

coldcoffee wrote:
So what? The accident of descent gives this random collection of individuals no say in the matter and no particular right to have their opinions valued above anybody else's. They are also, like many others, claiming a certainty about Richard's own intentions for his burial that simply is not there.
Well coldcoffee, it does "The Guidance for Best Practice for Treatment of Human Remains Excavated form Christian Burial Grounds in England" (2005) states in Annexe E6 (The Ethics of Destructive Sampling of Human Remains) point 191 states that "For burials of names individuals, permision should be sought from surviving family members, if known" As far as I know Leicester made no effort to comply with this. To add, Point 18 states " Ethical treatment of human remains involves making decisions that take into account, via appropriate consultation, the views of individuals and groups with legitimate interest in those remains. These interests include those of the dead themselves and their surviving family and descendants, the Church and other bodies responsible for the care of the dead, the general public, particularly those with direct links to the place of burial, and the scientific commuinity, including archaeologists, osteologists, and medical and forensice scientists". So come on York
, King Richard II may have left no will, that has been found, but most of the actions and clues all point to York as his preferred place of burial. After 500 years let King Richard III of the House of York rest in peace in the County that he loved and that so loved him. Bring King Richard home. Join Petition to bring King Richard back to Yorkshire on facebook and @Richardtoyork on twitter.

Report this post »

ceebeelee says...
3:08pm Mon 25 Feb 13

I lived in Leicester for 5 years then went and then came and lived in York for 5 years so I believe I am the only person whose opinion counts over this matter!!! Don't you think York has enough? Can't you just let Leicester have this one? I'm a lover of both cities but York has quite enough for the time being. The University of Leicester put a lot of hard work into uncovering these remains, there is no harm in leaving him there.

On another note, I do think that it's a bit of a shady claim that ancestors (great nephews and nieces) have any right to demand anything. I'm a great, great etc etc grandchild of Henry the II. Not only does that mean very little but it certainly gives me no right to claim a say over their remains!! If we all started those games we'd be ripping up corpses from all over the country and re-burying them.

Report this post »

Geoffers says...
3:12pm Mon 25 Feb 13

MarkyMarkMark wrote:
"The living descendants of Richard III...."

As opposed to the dead ones?
He has no descendants - alive or dead!
He died "without issue".

Report this post »

Geordie1965 says...
4:02pm Mon 25 Feb 13

York has lots of things. Let Leicester have the King, be Generous-sharing-Yor
kist's - and participate in the event. Why not start the reburial service at York Minister including the church and civic representatives and process to Leicester Cathedral, possibly visiting the battle field site. Plan the route and create a Richard III walk, drive, cycle, pilgrimage route from York to Leicester (and maybe back again? Make it an annual event, the route not the re-burial, do something for all those obscure little off the main route villages on the way). The service at Leicester might reflect it's status as Britain's most multicultural city ... join ancient history to the modern world and celebrate it.

Report this post »

Firedrake says...
4:15pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Now that's an excellent idea, Geordie! Rather like the "Eleanor Crosses" between Lincoln and London.

Report this post »

Firedrake says...
4:16pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Now that's an excellent idea, Geordie! Rather like the "Eleanor Crosses" between Lincoln and London.

Report this post »

Geordie1965 says...
4:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13

York has lots of things. Let Leicester have the King, be Generous-sharing-Yor
kist's - and participate in the event. Why not start the reburial service at York Minister including the church and civic representatives and process to Leicester Cathedral over a few days, possibly visiting the battle field site. Plan the route and create a Richard III walk, drive, cycle, pilgrimage, route from York to Leicester (and maybe back again? Make it an annual event, the route not the re-burial, do something for all those obscure little off the main route villages on the way). The service at Leicester might reflect it's status as Britain's most multicultural city ... join ancient history to the modern world and celebrate it. this way the whole event becomes much bigger for both cities, and puts them on the map annually, its what a King would have wanted!

Report this post »

Caecilius says...
5:29pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Geoffers wrote:
MarkyMarkMark wrote:
"The living descendants of Richard III...."

As opposed to the dead ones?
He has no descendants - alive or dead!
He died "without issue".
Exactly right. A niece or nephew, even 17 times removed, is a relative but not a "descendant", whatever these people claim. Richard's line of descent ended with his son Edward, who died in childhood, and with his two illegitimate children, who died childless.

Today's Daily Mail beat this mistake, though, by claiming that Richard's "ancestors" want him buried in York..... As the last of his ancestors died in 1495, it seems unlikely that they've expressed an opinion recently.

Another possibility would be to bury him at Fotheringhay, in Northamptonshire. He was born there, and his family built a large collegiate church near the castle as their mausoleum - Richard's parents and his brother Edmund are all buried there.

Report this post »

Garrowby Turnoff says...
5:37pm Mon 25 Feb 13

The scrap for the Richard III's bones is turning into an 'ice cream van' war over territories. Whoever gets the coffin gets the cash, and York can't afford to be 'generous' over this potential money spinner.

Report this post »

Blancsanglier says...
6:56pm Mon 25 Feb 13

What drivel some of these comments are. So sad. Whatever your opinion you should respect the opinions of others. For those who are genuinely interested, the arguments between those who want Richard in York or Leicester are split into two camps. Those who want Richard to be interred in York do so because we care that an anointed king of England, who has been slandered, vilified and ridiculed for over 500 years should now be buried and laid to rest in the place he wished. He lived for over 12 years in Yorkshire at Middleham and had many close associations with York, not least when writing to the Mayor and aldermen of York on the occasion of his return as "...... my homecoming". He made many good laws " for the well of the people" in his one and only Parliament, that we are still benefitting from today. On the other hand, all I have heard from those who call for Leicester is the fact he has been there for over 500 years, so he can stay there, or that he will be good for tourism or even that he died there. Not one word of the man himself, the fact that he was only there to meet with Tudor and not by choice. To those who scoff that York didn't look for him so they can't be that interested - neither did Leicester 'look for him' they were happy to keep repeating he had been thrown in the River Soar. It was a gutsy lady from Yorkshire who with great determination persuaded the council to give permission and then went about raising the funds to do so. I have no knowledge of York being asked to contribute but I know many, many others both national and international contributed to this spectacular archeological find, especially when the original sponser had pulled out twice. Leicester has been excellent in celebrating Richard ... they have the statue in the park, bow bridge, the memorial in the cathedral (commissioned by a private individual) their museum, now the car park and of course Bosworth Battlefield. They don't need his actual remains, those should be laid to rest in the place he wished and called home..... not the place he was 'most cruelly slain and murdered' left exposed in the market place and then hurriedly squashed into a too small grave. Let us now show him some respect. Is that too much to ask?

Report this post »

www.yorkstories.co.uk says...
8:36pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Have no problem with showing due respect. What I do have a problem understanding and accepting is the adoration and devotion for a man so long dead, and the heaping of so much emotional baggage on his poor bones.

There doesn't appear to be much genuine rational debate, and barely anyone seems to have considered the practicalities.

I have to be honest and say that I had no opinion originally, but have developed one in direct response to reading the comments of his passionate supporters, some of whom seem to be living still in the 15th century, and are obsessed with repeating the account of his suffering/experience
s over and over and over. With respect, it's not relevant. You will not heal his wounds by burying him in York. He's dead, he can't feel anything anymore.

He called York Minster home? Really? This 'bring him home' thing is a real crowd-pleaser, but doesn't seem entirely accurate.

And why does it bother me so much? Because York actually is my home, and has been for 40+ years. I really care about the place, the people who live here now, its Minster.

I resent the repeated insistence of so many thousands who don't live here and have probably never visited the place that we accommodate their shrine to King Richard.

This may be a minority view, but I'm not alone, and someone's got to say it.

Report this post »

Blancsanglier says...
8:48pm Mon 25 Feb 13

I have been to York many times, I know many people who live in York and who want him back and we do not say the Minster is his home, but York is. You may be in a minority - you may not but we all are entitled to our opinions. We do not have 'adoration' and 'devotion' but we do have respect... is that wrong? You can blame Thomas More, Tudor and Shakespeare for that - if they had not made such great efforts to malign and slander a man who had made such far reaching laws - he would probably have sank into the mists of time. By the way, York doesn't need his body to make a 'shrine' in the Minster - they already have one there.

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
9:03pm Mon 25 Feb 13

www.yorkstories.co.u
k wrote:
Have no problem with showing due respect. What I do have a problem understanding and accepting is the adoration and devotion for a man so long dead, and the heaping of so much emotional baggage on his poor bones. There doesn't appear to be much genuine rational debate, and barely anyone seems to have considered the practicalities. I have to be honest and say that I had no opinion originally, but have developed one in direct response to reading the comments of his passionate supporters, some of whom seem to be living still in the 15th century, and are obsessed with repeating the account of his suffering/experience s over and over and over. With respect, it's not relevant. You will not heal his wounds by burying him in York. He's dead, he can't feel anything anymore. He called York Minster home? Really? This 'bring him home' thing is a real crowd-pleaser, but doesn't seem entirely accurate. And why does it bother me so much? Because York actually is my home, and has been for 40+ years. I really care about the place, the people who live here now, its Minster. I resent the repeated insistence of so many thousands who don't live here and have probably never visited the place that we accommodate their shrine to King Richard. This may be a minority view, but I'm not alone, and someone's got to say it.
You're not alone.
Excellent comment.

Report this post »

whyterose13 says...
9:12pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Is it about time the descendants spoke up for their ancestor, but where have they been all this time? It has taken them what - 7 months for them to get off their duff and speak up for him?

Two organizations who have not sold out the King and have spoken up have been the Friends of Richard III in York and The Richard III Foundation, Inc. The head of the Foundation has spoken on BBC York Radio many times asking for the people of York and Yorkshire to support doing what is right by the king.

This is their second petition and I would encourage everyone to sign it and (join the Foundation and Friends group). These two organizations are NOT neutral and defend Richard III.

http://www.thepetiti
onsite.com/961/861/6
72/return-king-richa
rd-iii-to-yorkshire/
#sign

Report this post »

Zetkin says...
9:55pm Mon 25 Feb 13

I started off, several months ago, 100% behind the idea that Richard's bones should be reinterred at York or Middleham.

This was partly because that seemed to have been his wish, and partly from a sense of local pride that York had stood against the tide for so long and refused to accept the Tudors' propaganda.

However, I've changed my view as the "debate" has degenerated into an unseemly tug of war over who is to grab the commercial benefits of hosting the bones.

The attitude of some Ricardian fanatics has helped shape my revised opinion. As much as I think Richard was maligned by Shakespeare and the Tudors (for instance I seriously doubt that he was responsible for the presumed murder of his nephews), I cannot accept that he was some sort of fifteenth-century Yorkshire version of Eva Peron, supporting the serfs against their aristocratic masters.

In truth, he was an aristocrat, at the very top of the feudal tree. He may have been free and easy with favours for the great and good of York, but won't have had much impact on the life of the common people of the city and the county.

Richard was a medieval monarch engaged in a bitter and murderous struggle for power. I don't want my city to become a centre of pilgrimage for misguided people who want to revere a despot as a quasi-saint, no matter how much cash that might generate for local olde innes and gift shoppes.

The agreement signed before the archaeological dig began was to reinter any human remains in Leicester. That agreement should stand.

Report this post »

coldcoffee says...
10:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13

The comment from York Stories puts it better than I ever could. Well said. And the comment from whyterose13 makes it clear how desperately needed that blast of good sense is. 'Sold out the king', 'doing what is right by the king', what nonsense. The Wars of the Roses are long over and Richard III is just one in the long procession of past monarchs of this country, some good, some bad, all dead. His cause, however defined, is no more. Please stop trying to whip up enthusiasm in modern York for a re-run of a fifteenth-century quarrel.

Report this post »

Geordie1965 says...
10:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13

None of this discussion is rational - anointed king, bones back home, resting where he lay for 500 years, but I wouldn't insult either side. Make a compromise and share him and the process makes a one off event an annual event, which can be religious/spiritual, economic/tourist, cooperative rather than competitive, about friendship, sport and health, ongoing and live. I don't live in either city but love York, and Leicester is the heart of a New Britain. Why not build a new kind of twinning of cities within the UK.

Report this post »

Blancsanglier says...
10:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13

In truth, he was an aristocrat, at the very top of the feudal tree. He may have been free and easy with favours for the great and good of York, but won't have had much impact on the life of the common people of the city and the county" I am sorry, but you are wrong: From the Richard lll Society
Blind Justice: On the first day of his reign, Richard addressed his judges and lawyers and instructed them to dispense justice without regard to a person's rank in society, or their wealth and power. This was revolutionary in a feudal society that rested on inequality, and eventually it was to cost him his throne.

Presumption of Innocence: Richard's laws had one goal in common: To protect the innocent. Implicit in them is the principle of the presumption of innocence on which our legal system is based. Until Richard III, bail was available only to those convicted of a crime. They would be assessed a fine and released upon payment. Therefore, if trial could be avoided-- as it often was -- a person could be kept imprisoned indefinitely. Richard III gave bail to those accused of a crime so they would be free until trial. In his own words-- "The law shall cease to be an instrument of oppression and extortion." Richard III also made it illegal to seize a person's property untill he stood convicted of the crime of which he was accused. Before Richard III, a person's property was seized upon accusation.

Jury System: Before Richard's time the jury system didn't work well, since juries were packed with itinerants, and verdicts were routinely bought and sold. Richard III reformed the jury system with protections against bribery and tainted verdicts, and declared that everyone who serves on a jury should be of good repute and must own property in the shire. Today we exclude felons from the jury pool for this reason.

Clear Title: Richard III gave us the economic protection of "Clear Title" so unscrupulous sellers of land couldn't sell the same property multiple times to innocent buyers. Today we rely on this protection each time we buy a piece of property, and for most of us that is our home.

There are many other ways in which Richard III impacts our lives today, but his legacy has been erased by the Tudors, the folks who gave us two of the most repellent monarchs in British history -- Henry VIII, and Bloody Mary.
End of Article )

Report this post »

Seadog says...
10:48pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Well said Zetkin. My thoughts exactly! (I'm almost on the point of defection to Lancaster ... )

Report this post »

coldcoffee says...
8:01am Tue 26 Feb 13

Well said Zetkin. We can all copy-paste the little bits of history that suit us and remake the past into a version that comforts our prejudices. Blancsanglier and the Richard III Society are doing just that. That isn't history, it's polemic. Anyone could come here in response and load the other side of the argument with equally selective interpretations painting Richard as a villain, a usurper, a tyrant and a murderer. Such good guy vs. bad guy stuff doesn't get us anywhere rational, as the current Ricardian campaign clearly demonstrates.

Report this post »

Blancsanglier says...
4:56pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Zetkin obviously has a closed mind if he continues to say "In truth, he was an aristocrat, at the very top of the feudal tree. He may have been free and easy with favours for the great and good of York, but won't have had much impact on the life of the common people of the city and the county" when it obvious to anyone who cares to actually learn about Richard that this is far from the truth. We are still enjoying the benefits of what Richard started but you carry on ridiculing other people who actually care about such things. I would rather be me than have such a closed mind.

Report this post »

www.yorkstories.co.uk says...
10:26am Wed 27 Feb 13

Some great comments above.

coldcoffee: "Please stop trying to whip up enthusiasm in modern York for a re-run of a fifteenth-century quarrel." Indeed, beautifully put.

Blancsanglier: In your comments - and in particular in your attack of the extremely intelligent Zetkin - you've illustrated my earlier point beautifully.

There's clearly no point in attempting rational debate about what happens now with people who just want to keep telling us about what happened/didn't happen 500 years ago.

It's the 21st century, and we're supposed to be a reasonable and rational society. This ridiculous wrangle is a depressing spectacle. As my friend Chris said recently in his blog, it's "remarkably like an unseemly tussle between two medieval bishops over who gets to stick the preserved bits of an apostle in their cathedral".

It was cheering to see the thoughtful and rational comments above. Glad I'm not alone in my concerns.

Report this post »

SelbyRich says...
9:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Another boost for the comercially-driven interests of the York Tourist Board.

I'm a Yorkist and I say let him rest where he is.

If that's in Leicester, then so be it. After all, they paid for the exhumation and testing. No-one in York showed too much of an interest then!

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree