“In my view, it would be unseemly, undignified and unedifying to have a legal tussle over these royal remains.”
A high court judge has given permission for descendants of Richard III’s relatives to challenge plans to rebury the king’s remains in Leicester rather than York, but counselled both sides against engaging in an “unseemly, undignified and unedifying” legal rerun of the Wars of the Roses. Richard’s twisted and hacked skeleton was unearthed in a Leicester council car park last September, 527 years after he was killed at the battle of Bosworth Field and hurriedly buried in the church of the Greyfriars.
After the remains were identified in February as those of the last Plantagenet king, it was announced that Richard would be re-interred in Leicester cathedral.
The decision, however, did not go down well with the Plantagenet Alliance, which claims 15 descendants of relatives of the king as members. The alliance wants the remains buried in York, which, it claims, he regarded as his home.
On Friday, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave gave the go-ahead for the alliance to bring judicial review proceedings against the justice secretary and the University of Leicester, which excavated the car park under licence from the Ministry of Justice.
The licence stipulated that the king’s remains should be “deposited in [Leicester’s] Jewry Wall museum or else be re-interred at [the city’s] St Martin’s cathedral or a burial ground in which interments may legally take place”.
Granting permission for a hearing later this year, the judge described the discovery of the mortal remains of an English monarch as unprecedented.
“In my judgment, it is plainly arguable that there was a duty at common law to consult widely as to how and where Richard III’s remains should appropriately be reinterred,” he said.
“I grant permission to the claimant to bring judicial review proceedings against the secretary of state for justice and the University of Leicester on all grounds.”
Referring to the high court’s proximity to the Temple inns of court, he added: “It is ironic that the Wars of the Roses appear to be returning whence they started – the Temple.
“Legend has it that John Beaufort and Richard Plantagenet picked the symbolic red and white roses in Inner and Middle Temple gardens … I would, however, urge the parties to avoid embarking on the (legal) Wars of the Roses part 2.
“In my view, it would be unseemly, undignified and unedifying to have a legal tussle over these royal remains.”
Such a fight, said the judge, would be neither appropriate nor in the national interest. He instead urged the parties to consider referring the reburial to an independent panel comprising experts and privy councillors, which could consider representations and come up with suitable recommendations.
But, in his written ruling, Haddon-Cave noted that the merits of the alliance’s challenge were “clearly arguable”.
He said the “core submission” of the alliance’s case “is that the secretary of state for justice had a duty in law to consult ‘relevant interests’, including descendants, as to how, and where, the remains of Richard III should be reburied, but he failed to comply with that duty prior to issuing the licence or at any time thereafter”.
The alliance, he added, had submitted that the “relevant interests” were the citizens of the UK who have an interest in the fate of the rediscovered body of a historically important anointed former monarch of the realm, the living collateral descendants of Richard III, and the wishes of Richard III himself “in so far as they can be ascertained or inferred”.
The judge also recognised that there were economic issues to be considered in terms of prestige and tourism.
“The benefit in terms of prestige and increased tourism to the city or place or institution which eventually secures these royal remains is obvious,” he noted. “It is said that the footfall at Leicester cathedral has increased 20-fold since the discovery.”
The discovery of Richard’s 5ft 8in(172cm) skeleton, concluded the judge, “touches upon our history, heritage and identity”, adding: “The public interest requires that these issues are resolved.”
• This article was amended on 19 August 2013. An earlier version referred to Richard III’s descendants. He had no direct descendants, his only son predeceased him.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
