Friday 16 August 2013

The burial of King Richard III - a judicial review

Update 2nd December - Law Society Gazette - The remains of Richard III spark a modern day legal fight

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave has granted permission for a judicial review of the decision to re-inter the remains of King Richard III at Leicester - R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice and others

Please see my previous post Richard III.  Haddon-Cave J ended his judgment as follows:

Final comments and recommendation 

39.  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 (c.f. Henry VI,Part 1, Act 2).

40. 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. This would not be appropriate, or in the country’s interests. The discovery of Richard III’s remains engages interests beyond those of the immediate parties, and touches on Sovereign, State and Church.

41. For these reasons, I would strongly recommend that parties immediately consider referring the fundamental question - as to where and how Richard III is reburied -to an independent advisory panel made up of suitable experts and Privy Councillors, who can consult and receive representations from all interested parties and make suitable recommendations with reasonable speed.

A further post on this at Law and Religion UK 

Wars of the Roses


  1. I don't wish to be rude, but that's one of the most idiotically stupid decisions I have come across. The JR application was five months late, the granting of a licence was plainly within discretionary powers, and the archaeology took place under the conditions of the licence, which had never been challenged.

    What is even worse is that the judge had granted a protective costs order. So as a taxpayer I am paying for this. As well as court time being wasted.

    The judge even throws in the Human Rights Act as a possible ground. In relation to a burial 500 years ago.

    Disgraceful decision.

  2. Not Leicester. Not York. The Abbey. And in the Earl of Richmond's chapel, to put two fingers in the eyes of that Welsh usurper. The chapel where he is buried is of surpassing beauty and splendour.

    He is described in works of History, which is written by the winners, as Henry VII. In fact that title belongs to his son, the one with six wives, who succeeded in 1503 on the death of his mother, Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth, although he was kept out of his inheritance by his father until he died in 1509.

    That of course would make the Virgin Queen Elizabeth II and our present Sovereign Lady would be the third Queen of her name on this side of the Border; but she was proclaimed as Elizabeth II and that is conclusive.

    Here endeth the Rant of the Day.

  3. Richard III, the last YORKist king, of the House of YORK, raised at Middleham in YORKshire, under the banner of the Sun of YORK. His little boy is buried in the little parish church of Sheriff Hutton, near YORK. Richard ordered a chapel to be built to hold his own remains in York MINSTER....

    How on earth could anybody plug Leicester -- of all places -- over YORK!! Is it really true, that the Leicester camp effectively want him buried there because that's where he fetched up? And because he was thrown in a hole there for 500 years? That, believe it or not, is the only connection Richard the Third has with Leicester.