It’s not Yorkshire being greedy over Richard’s resting place

Have your say

From: Angela Moreton, Chandos Avenue, Roundhay, Leeds.

I REFER to Nigel Underwood’s letter, published (Yorkshire Post, August 23) under the title “Row over Richard III twisting verdict of history”.

Mr Underwood seems to think that the king’s probable wish to be buried in York Minster (or perhaps at Westminster with his queen, Anne Neville) was overturned because he was defeated in battle and the “forces of history” took over”.

A more obvious reason for 
King Richard’s ignominious interment in Leicester is that his successor Henry Tudor had no wish to honour or dignify his body or his memory – unlike King Richard himself, who had the body of the Lancastrian Henry VI (to whom he certainly owed no favours) reinterred at Windsor as befitted a monarch, even though Henry was a sad disappointment by mediaeval standards of kingship.

Mr Underwood – who apparently lives in Leicester – considers, perhaps naturally enough, that those who would prefer King Richard to be buried anywhere other than in Leicester are simply motivated by greed, and also do not feel Leicester cathedral is “good enough” for a king’s tomb.

In bald terms, it isn’t. Leicester cathedral is the fourth smallest in the country and was not 
even made a cathedral until the early 20th century.

York Minster, which King Richard knew well, is the largest Gothic church north of the Alps, and of course the mother church of an Archdiocese,

As far as greed goes, it is surely Leicester City Council who are cashing in on King Richard with their “specially created visitor centre telling his story”.

If they are so keen to flag up their connections with the king, whose burial place at the Greyfriars had been known almost since the day he was 
put there, it’s surprising it’s 
taken them so long to get round to it.

I believe they also wished to put his actual skeleton on display, an intention fortunately defeated by a local newspaper poll. Such a level of civic tastelessness does not bode well for the future if King Richard has to remain in Leicester.

From: Mary Hellawell, Cross Lane, Scarborough.

REGARDING Nigel Underwood’s comments on Richard III), aren’t you being a bit of a hypocrite? “Lovely cathedral – special visitors’ centre” etc.

All you are interested in is a draw for tourism, nothing 
to do with the rights of the family descendants of Richard III.

Are you also advocating that people should always be buried where they die?

I would also point out that Richard lost out because of 
the treachery of one of his supposed supporters, who 
held back a large contingent 
of the army. Richard belongs 
in York.

Had he succeeded in keeping his throne that is where he 
would have been buried. The wishes of family should also be respected.

From: R Farley, Croft Way, Camblesforth, Selby

NIGEL Underwood’s letter about the “row over Richard III twisting verdict of history” is a load of codswallop. Without giving into a long diatribe all I will say is that I agree with him when he says the real motivation for moving Richard rests on simple snobbery and greed. Yes, Leicester’s!

And what about his assertion that Richard III was defeated at Bosworth and should therefore be buried in Leicester?

Should our other gallant soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on be buried there and not brought “home”?