From: Michael Ellison, Knapping Hill, Harrogate.
I BELIEVE that I am amongst the majority of individuals who are indifferent as to where the identified remains of King Richard III are re-interred.
In 2009, I raised concerns about the proposed movements of fifth generation ancestors. On March 16, 2009, the Bradford Diocesan Registry wrote regarding the movement of graves within a church graveyard. The letter stated where possible written consent should be obtained from “direct descendants of named individuals”. It added: “If there is conflict between direct descendants ... those issues can only be properly resolved by way of a faculty petition to the (Diocesan) Chancellor.”
Although the dispute I was involved with is not the same as that involving the remains of Richard III, I think there are similarities.
I understand that the remains excavated in Leicester have been identified using DNA from living descendants. Therefore, I assume this identification process proves those persons are direct descendants of the late monarch. It is my interpretation of the above instructions that the only individuals who can grant permission for the remains of Richard III to be re-interred in sacred ground are any identified direct descendants.
If they are all in accord that King Richard III should be interred at York Minster, then that should be his final resting place – not Leicester.