Tenuous link for those laying claim to Richard

I HAVE never been a particular follower of Richard III but, as there has been much dispute and discussion of the recent discovery of his remains in a car park in Leicester, I have taken a keen interest in the story.

It seems, as far as we know from documentation of Richard’s life, that he did indeed know Leicester a little. However, the most telling thing about his association with that city is that he was killed nearby. Then, as far as we can ascertain, he was buried with very little ceremony.

Surely the killing and burial in a place which was the site of a battle does not automatically qualify a city to lay claims to his bones when it seems he will bring them some benefit?

After all, as I understand it, there had never been any real effort previously by anyone in Leicester to locate the remains of Richard until Philippa Langley decided that it was a worthwhile cause and she was encouraged and supported by the Richard III Society.

Of course, Leicester University did a great deal of work to uncover the remains and establish that the bones were indeed those of Richard, which would be a useful academic exercise and beneficial to the university for the experience, but surely that does not give them the right to override the well-known wishes of the Catholic monarch to be given a burial in the place he knew and loved best?

I believe there can be no other motive for the enthusiasm of the city of Leicester and the cathedral to bury him there but a commercial one.