Richard III relatives lose appeal - considering an appeal - MP slams 'finders keepers' agreement

Richard III relatives lose appeal

Richard III relatives lose appeal

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

RELATIVES of Richard III have lost their High Court battle with Justice Secretary Chris Grayling over where the monarch's remains should be reburied.

Three High Court judges have today ruled in favour of the Justice Secretary saying campaigners and distant relatives of the king cannot have a public consultation on his burial place.

They said it was "time for King Richard III to be given a dignified reburial, and finally laid to rest" and rejected the Plantagenet Alliance's claims there should be a wide-ranging public consultation to decide the king's final resting place.

Vanessa Roe, a Plantagenet Alliance member and 16th great niece of Richard said she was frustrated and disappointed at the news.

"We are very disappointed with the result, in our opinion it's not the right one.

"It's frustrating, because we want justice for Richard and for York. It's more disappointing for him than anyone else."

Ms Roe also dubbed Justice Secretary Chris Grayling "ungracious" after he said the Plantagenet Alliance had only "tenuous claims to being relatives of Richard III", and criticised them for wasting tax payers money by bringing the legal challenge.

She said the Alliance would consider their options before deciding whether to take more action, and the group's lawyer Matthew Howarth said an appeal was now under consideration.

Mr Howarth said: "We obviously respect and accept today's verdict, and are grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this matter before the courts, but are naturally disappointed at the decision, which we regard as highly regrettable."

York MPs Julian Sturdy and Hugh Bayley have also spoken of their disappointed at the news.

Mr Sturdy slammed the decision, saying the original exhumation licence amounted to nothing more than "a ‘finders keepers’ agreement concocted behind closed doors."

He added: “It is immensely frustrating that despite the unprecedented discovery of such a historically, politically and culturally significant monarch, the Ministry of Justice still refuses to listen to the public on such an important issue.

"Over 60,000 people have signed petitions on where they think the reburial should take place and such strong public feeling should not be ignored. Many of my own constituents believe they have been cheated out of the democratic and open debate that should have taken place over such an important chapter in our heritage.

“It is only right and proper that King Richard should return to his home city of York, even if on a temporary basis, after spending the last 500 years under a car park in Leicester. The people of Yorkshire deserve the chance to pay their final respects to the last Yorkist King, whose death brought about the end of one of the most brutal conflicts in our history.”

But York's council and Minster, and the University of York, have said only that they are pleased clarity has been brought to the process.

In a joint statement, the three bodies said they looked forward to working with Leicester to tell Richard III's story, and his links to York and Yorkshire.

The Plantagenet Alliance launched the legal challenge in March, but waited nine and a half weeks for a result.

They argued a public consultation should be held over his reburial, and the Ministry of Justice's original exhumation licence, which said the remains should be re-interred in Leicester, overturned.

Today Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, ruled there were no public law grounds for interfering with the plans for reburial at Leicester Cathedral.

The three judges said in a joint ruling: "Since Richard III's exhumation on 5th September 2012, passions have been roused and much ink has been spilt.

"Issues relating to his life and death and place of re-interment have been exhaustively examined and debated.

"The Very Reverend David Monteith, the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, has explained the considerable efforts and expenditure invested by the cathedral in order to create a lasting burial place "as befits an anointed King".

"We agree that it is time for Richard III to be given a dignified reburial, and finally laid to rest."

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:37pm Fri 23 May 14

Y.I.P. says...

For goodness sake leave the lad where he is,and bury this story YEP no pun intended
For goodness sake leave the lad where he is,and bury this story YEP no pun intended Y.I.P.
  • Score: 15

4:09pm Fri 23 May 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Can't wait to hear what CHISSY1 of Selby thinks about this, she was desperate for Richard to be buried in York.
Can't wait to hear what CHISSY1 of Selby thinks about this, she was desperate for Richard to be buried in York. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: 10

4:17pm Fri 23 May 14

redbluelion says...

Who care's its just an on going bore now..
Who care's its just an on going bore now.. redbluelion
  • Score: -3

4:23pm Fri 23 May 14

MouseHouse says...

Enough is enough on this. Leave the man be, leave his remains in Leicester so we can get on with looking after the living.

Please, just drop it now.

Thanks
Enough is enough on this. Leave the man be, leave his remains in Leicester so we can get on with looking after the living. Please, just drop it now. Thanks MouseHouse
  • Score: 19

4:38pm Fri 23 May 14

Mullarkian says...

Calling that church in Leicester a cathedral is stretching it a bit , it's tiny compared to places like Lincoln and York.
It was only made a 'cathedral' in 1927.
Best place for him is Sheriff Hutton with his lad.
Calling that church in Leicester a cathedral is stretching it a bit , it's tiny compared to places like Lincoln and York. It was only made a 'cathedral' in 1927. Best place for him is Sheriff Hutton with his lad. Mullarkian
  • Score: 9

4:38pm Fri 23 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

I am York born and bred, I personally think it's about time that all this wrangling about where Richard III's remains are to be buried should now stop, and after this High Court ruling his remains should be shown some dignity and be interned in Leicester Cathedral.

I had to read the comment twice made by Vanessa Roe, a Plantagenet Alliance member and 16th great niece of Richard who said she was frustrated and disappointed at the news. "We are very disappointed with the result, in our opinion it's not the right one. "It's frustrating, because we want justice for Richard and for York. It's more disappointing for him than anyone else." - has she got a direct line to Richard I wonder?
I am York born and bred, I personally think it's about time that all this wrangling about where Richard III's remains are to be buried should now stop, and after this High Court ruling his remains should be shown some dignity and be interned in Leicester Cathedral. I had to read the comment twice made by Vanessa Roe, a Plantagenet Alliance member and 16th great niece of Richard who said she was frustrated and disappointed at the news. "We are very disappointed with the result, in our opinion it's not the right one. "It's frustrating, because we want justice for Richard and for York. It's more disappointing for him than anyone else." - has she got a direct line to Richard I wonder? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -12

5:08pm Fri 23 May 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

They obviously have a bone to pick with the judges...
They obviously have a bone to pick with the judges... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -4

5:17pm Fri 23 May 14

Alf Garnett says...

Mullarkian wrote:
Calling that church in Leicester a cathedral is stretching it a bit , it's tiny compared to places like Lincoln and York.
It was only made a 'cathedral' in 1927.
Best place for him is Sheriff Hutton with his lad.
As the seat of a bishop, it's a cathedral. Size and style have nothing to do with it. Peterborough only became a cathedral in 1541. Ripon in 1836. What's your cut-off date for authenticity ?
[quote][p][bold]Mullarkian[/bold] wrote: Calling that church in Leicester a cathedral is stretching it a bit , it's tiny compared to places like Lincoln and York. It was only made a 'cathedral' in 1927. Best place for him is Sheriff Hutton with his lad.[/p][/quote]As the seat of a bishop, it's a cathedral. Size and style have nothing to do with it. Peterborough only became a cathedral in 1541. Ripon in 1836. What's your cut-off date for authenticity ? Alf Garnett
  • Score: 11

6:28pm Fri 23 May 14

purelobo says...

no doubt the silly old harry gration and his whiney sidekick will be grumbling on look north.let it go now,no one gave a toss before and stop making fools of yourselves.
no doubt the silly old harry gration and his whiney sidekick will be grumbling on look north.let it go now,no one gave a toss before and stop making fools of yourselves. purelobo
  • Score: 4

6:37pm Fri 23 May 14

browbeaten says...

Lets face it this was about tourism and money.
Walked past middleham castle the other day the childhood home of this man.
Was s royal standard flying above the castle ? Not a bit of it. A well past its best english heritage flag. End of business.
Lets face it this was about tourism and money. Walked past middleham castle the other day the childhood home of this man. Was s royal standard flying above the castle ? Not a bit of it. A well past its best english heritage flag. End of business. browbeaten
  • Score: 8

7:03pm Fri 23 May 14

redbluelion says...

well the judges will have a bit more money now i suppose...
well the judges will have a bit more money now i suppose... redbluelion
  • Score: 6

7:34pm Fri 23 May 14

Yorkborneinbse says...

Yorkshire people paying their last respects to a bag of old bones !! Give it a rest.
Yorkshire people paying their last respects to a bag of old bones !! Give it a rest. Yorkborneinbse
  • Score: -1

7:39pm Fri 23 May 14

Guthred says...

Well done to Leicester for being so diginified about this matter. It's your dingnity and serenity wot won it and King Richard III would have thought very highly of your behaviour. Unlike the bullying, screaming, tantrum throwing and attention seeking PA's. The lawyes are also very happy to make a few quid over nothing.

Can we end here please? Thank you.
Well done to Leicester for being so diginified about this matter. It's your dingnity and serenity wot won it and King Richard III would have thought very highly of your behaviour. Unlike the bullying, screaming, tantrum throwing and attention seeking PA's. The lawyes are also very happy to make a few quid over nothing. Can we end here please? Thank you. Guthred
  • Score: 6

8:19pm Fri 23 May 14

Elephant says...

Richard of York's relatives gave battle in vain.
Richard of York's relatives gave battle in vain. Elephant
  • Score: 10

8:24pm Fri 23 May 14

CHISSY1 says...

Not just me then.
Not just me then. CHISSY1
  • Score: -75

9:50pm Fri 23 May 14

long distance depressive says...

Hope the current Queen doesn't pass away during a visit to Corby!!
Hope the current Queen doesn't pass away during a visit to Corby!! long distance depressive
  • Score: 6

11:48am Sat 24 May 14

CHISSY1 says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Can't wait to hear what CHISSY1 of Selby thinks about this, she was desperate for Richard to be buried in York.
I do not live in Selby,doh.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: Can't wait to hear what CHISSY1 of Selby thinks about this, she was desperate for Richard to be buried in York.[/p][/quote]I do not live in Selby,doh. CHISSY1
  • Score: -46

12:13pm Sat 24 May 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Aw Shucks! Can't York have one little tiny bone (p'raps the humpty back) to justify the massive 10,000 sq meters tourist attraction they could house it in? It must be worth bribing Chris Grayling.
Aw Shucks! Can't York have one little tiny bone (p'raps the humpty back) to justify the massive 10,000 sq meters tourist attraction they could house it in? It must be worth bribing Chris Grayling. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -6

12:44pm Sat 24 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Wish they would restrict car usage on Lendal Bridge again!
Wish they would restrict car usage on Lendal Bridge again! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -30

1:06pm Sat 24 May 14

Happy Chappie says...

What a complete waste of time and money, like little children " It's mine... no it isn't.. yes it is". Not even news worthy. Was going to suggest put in brown bin but have to pay for them now.
What a complete waste of time and money, like little children " It's mine... no it isn't.. yes it is". Not even news worthy. Was going to suggest put in brown bin but have to pay for them now. Happy Chappie
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Sat 24 May 14

nearlyman says...

Like vultures fighting over a carcass.......and its all really just about money once again and who can make what out of their visitor centre !!
Like vultures fighting over a carcass.......and its all really just about money once again and who can make what out of their visitor centre !! nearlyman
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sat 24 May 14

seatothewest says...

This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK.

Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial.

That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.
This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK. Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial. That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense. seatothewest
  • Score: -2

2:16pm Sat 24 May 14

notpedallingpaul says...

seatothewest wrote:
This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK. Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial. That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.
In that case then he should be returned to Fotheringhay Castle to be buried, for thats where he was born.
[quote][p][bold]seatothewest[/bold] wrote: This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK. Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial. That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.[/p][/quote]In that case then he should be returned to Fotheringhay Castle to be buried, for thats where he was born. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -7

2:42pm Sat 24 May 14

MouseHouse says...

seatothewest wrote:
This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK.

Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial.

That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.
Where do you think the millions of fallen in the two world wars are buried? Never been to a Commonwealth War Grave overseas? If not, next time you're in Europe, North Africa or Asia please do so. They are nicely maintained and make you ponder upon life. You'll enjoy your holiday that little bit more afterwards.
[quote][p][bold]seatothewest[/bold] wrote: This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK. Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial. That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.[/p][/quote]Where do you think the millions of fallen in the two world wars are buried? Never been to a Commonwealth War Grave overseas? If not, next time you're in Europe, North Africa or Asia please do so. They are nicely maintained and make you ponder upon life. You'll enjoy your holiday that little bit more afterwards. MouseHouse
  • Score: 8

3:29pm Sat 24 May 14

Tricky Dickie says...

seatothewest wrote:
This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK.

Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial.

That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.
Your post is an even more absurd interpretation of the implication of the ruling. Of course if you died during a trip to Leicester, you would not have to be buried there. Your living relatives can arrange for you to be returned to your home city to be buried, if that is what you so desired.

This ruling doesn't change that. Had the so called relatives (and lets face it, anybody that is related to any of the indiginous British families has a high likelihood of being related to Richard III) decided to go looking for him themselves, and applied for the licence to dig him up, I'm sure they could have made it clear their intension was to bury him in York. But they didn't.

Instead they waited for somebody else to spend their cash and time applying for licences, digging up the carpark and eventually finding the King's remains. Only at that point, once all the work had been done, did the "relatives" (some of whom seem to have a direct phone line to RIII, and can some how vocalise his express desire to be buried in York, even though there seems to be no historical evidence to support this claim) suddenly take an interest.
[quote][p][bold]seatothewest[/bold] wrote: This is an absurd ruling; if extended, for example, to troops in Afghanistan they would be buried not far from the area of 'battle' in Afghanistan, and not returned home to the UK. Alternatively, if I visit the Leicester area and die there, I will not be entitled to return home to York for burial. That a king, or ordinary person, should be buried in the area they die and not returned home is clearly nonsense.[/p][/quote]Your post is an even more absurd interpretation of the implication of the ruling. Of course if you died during a trip to Leicester, you would not have to be buried there. Your living relatives can arrange for you to be returned to your home city to be buried, if that is what you so desired. This ruling doesn't change that. Had the so called relatives (and lets face it, anybody that is related to any of the indiginous British families has a high likelihood of being related to Richard III) decided to go looking for him themselves, and applied for the licence to dig him up, I'm sure they could have made it clear their intension was to bury him in York. But they didn't. Instead they waited for somebody else to spend their cash and time applying for licences, digging up the carpark and eventually finding the King's remains. Only at that point, once all the work had been done, did the "relatives" (some of whom seem to have a direct phone line to RIII, and can some how vocalise his express desire to be buried in York, even though there seems to be no historical evidence to support this claim) suddenly take an interest. Tricky Dickie
  • Score: 9

3:31pm Sat 24 May 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Ah well. Why don't we dig up Churchill and bury him in Berlin? Same difference in my opinion.
Ah well. Why don't we dig up Churchill and bury him in Berlin? Same difference in my opinion. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: -213

5:26pm Sat 24 May 14

Vine Weevil says...

Nice to know our MPs are concerning themselves with contemporary issues like the loss of sovereignty to the EU. I am sure that Richard III's opinion on the Maastricht treaty would be most interesting. Did I see the jaw of that skeleton move? What was it saying? Vote UKIP !!!
Nice to know our MPs are concerning themselves with contemporary issues like the loss of sovereignty to the EU. I am sure that Richard III's opinion on the Maastricht treaty would be most interesting. Did I see the jaw of that skeleton move? What was it saying? Vote UKIP !!! Vine Weevil
  • Score: -35

6:33pm Sat 24 May 14

MouseHouse says...

Leave the EU and we're waving goodbye to influence, trade, logistics, diplomacy and access to world class experts. We'd also be waving goodbye to our say on future European law, that if we wanted to trade with the EU we'd have to adhere to anyway...except it would have none of our opinions and desires taken into consideration.

Even a dusty old set o'bones would think twice about leaving the EU.
Leave the EU and we're waving goodbye to influence, trade, logistics, diplomacy and access to world class experts. We'd also be waving goodbye to our say on future European law, that if we wanted to trade with the EU we'd have to adhere to anyway...except it would have none of our opinions and desires taken into consideration. Even a dusty old set o'bones would think twice about leaving the EU. MouseHouse
  • Score: 56

8:12pm Sat 24 May 14

goatman says...

He's well off in Leicester - there's plenty of Richard the Thirds there.....
He's well off in Leicester - there's plenty of Richard the Thirds there..... goatman
  • Score: -4

9:50pm Sat 24 May 14

Lamplighter says...

Why would Richard want to be buried in York when the head of his father once adorned a spike atop Micklegate bar?
Why would Richard want to be buried in York when the head of his father once adorned a spike atop Micklegate bar? Lamplighter
  • Score: 12

11:24pm Sat 24 May 14

petethefeet says...

A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment?
A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment? petethefeet
  • Score: -3

12:28am Sun 25 May 14

petethefeet says...

You omitted to say that the Plantagenet alliance did all the research to pinpoint King Richard's resting place?
You omitted to say that the Plantagenet alliance did all the research to pinpoint King Richard's resting place? petethefeet
  • Score: -3

8:05am Sun 25 May 14

eeoodares says...

It is a shame he did not come back to York. It would be worth a great deal to the City.
The more attractions we have in the City to bring business in the better.
It is a shame he did not come back to York. It would be worth a great deal to the City. The more attractions we have in the City to bring business in the better. eeoodares
  • Score: -5

9:41am Sun 25 May 14

Starboard22 says...

Nice to see 'rip off York' getting ripped off. Ha Ha
Nice to see 'rip off York' getting ripped off. Ha Ha Starboard22
  • Score: 5

11:46am Sun 25 May 14

MouseHouse says...

petethefeet wrote:
A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment?
Judges create law by precedent. I doubt there was much by way of precedent on this.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment?[/p][/quote]Judges create law by precedent. I doubt there was much by way of precedent on this. MouseHouse
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Sun 25 May 14

Devils_advocate says...

Er..... "...should return to his home city .....". By what definition was York Richard III's home city?
Er..... "...should return to his home city .....". By what definition was York Richard III's home city? Devils_advocate
  • Score: 10

4:40pm Sun 25 May 14

petethefeet says...

MouseHouse wrote:
petethefeet wrote:
A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment?
Judges create law by precedent. I doubt there was much by way of precedent on this.
Partly true. They should first look for parliamentary prescription and then look for precedent case(common) law. If none exists then they should create it (how else would any common law have started?). I suspect that comes down to what tier the court is and possibly needs to be at the level of the law lords.
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: A bit of a strange verdict. Judges should not go against parliamentary law but where no such 'public law' exists then they should create it. So I'm now confused. Is there a standing prescription that dictates when judges should make (common) law or do they just interfere when they feel inclined to do so? Any 'legal eagle` out there like to comment?[/p][/quote]Judges create law by precedent. I doubt there was much by way of precedent on this.[/p][/quote]Partly true. They should first look for parliamentary prescription and then look for precedent case(common) law. If none exists then they should create it (how else would any common law have started?). I suspect that comes down to what tier the court is and possibly needs to be at the level of the law lords. petethefeet
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Mon 26 May 14

cazanne says...

How can York be his home city if he never lived there??
How can York be his home city if he never lived there?? cazanne
  • Score: 9

9:48am Wed 28 May 14

herstorywriter says...

Many of Julian Sturdy's constituents may well have lobbied him on this issue - but the 60,000+ signatories of both petitions only represent c. 0.125% of our total electorate. So the Ministry of Justice HAS listened to the people - fact is, outside the community of history anoraks (of which I'm a proud member!), the average Joe Public couldn't care less where Richard III is buried. See my blog http://helenraerants
.wordpress.com/ for more...
Many of Julian Sturdy's constituents may well have lobbied him on this issue - but the 60,000+ signatories of both petitions only represent c. 0.125% of our total electorate. So the Ministry of Justice HAS listened to the people - fact is, outside the community of history anoraks (of which I'm a proud member!), the average Joe Public couldn't care less where Richard III is buried. See my blog http://helenraerants .wordpress.com/ for more... herstorywriter
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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