E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe bones of Richard III, who reigned for two years, have been discovered in Leicester, England, and they indicate that his spine was twisted by scoliosis and that he received eight head wounds in battle. NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports.
Nine distant relatives of King Richard III are demanding that the British government reverse its decision to have his skeleton reburied at Leicester Cathedral, near the parking lot where it was found, and give it a resting place in York instead.
The open letter, published late Sunday by British newspapers such as The Telegraph and the Daily Mail, is just one of several efforts seeking a burial at York Minster for the more than 500-year-old remains, which were discovered last year by researchers from the University of Leicester. This month, the researchers said DNA analysis and other forensic tests proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that the skeleton was that of Richard III.
The English monarch reigned for just two years before he was killed in battle in 1485, but he was immortalized in William Shakespeare's play, "Richard III," in which he was portrayed as a hunchbacked villain. Richard III's legions of modern-day fans say he wasn't really all that bad — and the row over what to do with his bones has added a new twist to the drama.
"We, the undernamed, do hereby most respectfully demand that the remains of King Richard III, the last Plantagenet King of England and our mutual ancestor, be returned to the city of York for formal, ceremonial reburial," the statement from his relatives says. "We believe that such an interment was the desire of King Richard in life and we have written this statement so that his wishes may be fully recognised and upheld. King Richard III was the last King of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty which had ruled England since the succession of King Henry II in 1154.
"We, the undernamed blood descendants, unreservedly believe that King Richard is deserving of great recognition and respect and hereby agree to dutifully uphold his memory.
"With due humility and affection, we are and will remain His Majesty’s representatives and voice."
The statement was signed by nine individuals who have traced their ancestry back to Richard III's siblings. The nine signers are Charles E. Brunner, Stephen Guy Nicolay, Vanessa Maria Roe, Jacob Daniel Tyler, Paul Tyler, Raymond Torrence Bertram Roe, Linda Jane Roe, Eleanor Bianca Lupton and Charlotte Jane Lupton. Richard died childless and thus has no direct-line descendants.
Even before the remains were found, the British Ministry of Justice granted a license putting the University of Leicester in charge of the parking-lot dig and the disposition of any remains found there."The University of Leicester specified in its application that reinterment would occur in Leicester Cathedral if the remains were proved to be those of King Richard III," the institution said in a statement.
The university is currently working with the cathedral and Leicester's city council on plans for his reburial by August 2014. In the meantime, researchers are continuing to study the remains.
The long lead time means that the tug of war between Leicester and York, two cities that are 100 miles (160 kilometers) from each other, could continue for months. There are even those who want to see the remains interred in London's Westminster Abbey. But the nine relatives behind this week's open letter have no more standing than the other descendants of Richard III's family, who doubtless number in the thousands by now.
In that light, Leicester seems to have the strongest case, by virtue of legal grounds as well as the less rigorous "finders, keepers" rule and the dictum that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Do you disagree? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More about Richard III:
- Study suggests Richard III spoke with a lilt
- King Richard III's face revealed after 500 years
- Richard III's 'discovery' was reported in 1935, too
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
“Imagine stuff like that goes on all the time. I mean, I don't give a sh!t. If I was dead, you could bang me all you want. Who cares? Dead body's like a piece of trash. I mean, shove as much sh!t in there as you want. I won't care. Fill me up with cream. Turn me into a cannoli. Make a stew out of my a$$. What's the big deal? Bang me, eat me, grind me up into little pieces, throw me in the river. Who gives a sh!t? You're dead, you're dead. (Discovering that the mic he is wearing is on) Oh sh!t, is my mic on?”
-Frank Reynolds
Who gives a s@#t ?
Richard III spent many years in York and environs and was well liked and respected by the people in the north of England. He should be buried in York as was his own wish. BTW, in response to the above sarcastic posts, people who enjoy history care about these things
The family should decide where the body is reburied. How would the current Queen like to be dumped where ever she happens to drop?
@Jonathan,
Essentially there is NO family. Richard III died childless and had NO direct descendants. Indirect descendants simply are only technically related at all and are considered as non-lineal descendants and are not entitled to inheritance of any kind. There is NO family. I am probably kin to Richard III as a non-linear descendant.
The English are so retarted with their royal family crap...
The word is "retarded". Before you come off sounding like such, learn to spell.
Right, because typos never happen! :rollseyes:
I sense a growing sense of both power and frustration with the Plantagenets - the Tudors better watch their backs!
We know the major academic role that Leicester has in this discovery and will always honor these fine scientists, for their work has been the best. However, if you think about who this is and what happened to him there, it is only proper to honor this king's wishes for his own burial now as then.
Bury the King in his blessed home-land which is the territory of York. It has to do with justice in following his will, class - proper etiquette as their customs would have been followed, and many tourists who study history from around the world would like it too. They could even stop at Sherwood Forest on the way up north! Too few travellers ever get out of London and they miss so much. The Albion Isle is full of legendary spots and beautiful places to enjoy. Congratulations to all decendents of the Plantagenet!
Good riddance to the Plantagents, the Tudors saved England from becoming irrelevant. And they were Welsh, even better yet!
If they have no respect for their countries history and its kings, they should do whatever they want. Otherwise, they should do with the remains what is closest to what the dead king would have wished.
we should be doing this in every country
what if the true kings of wales Scotland and Ireland turned up-that would change the balance of power right there-they had kings once why not a again
what if the king of Germany turned up-imagine the pride of returning kings and queens to the thrones-one big party signaling to a turn for the better in our world
-finding the Russian kings and queens -frances -scotlands -wales
it would change everything I mean look at England
the king is now a queen - Philip can never be a king-will William be the king of wales or the king of England -just asking because of the title now
the kingdom became an empire
should be the british kingdom not british empire
i'm American with welsh heritage 0-what happened to the celtic spirit
Perhaps you should write in Welsh. Your English is pathetic and your complete lack of knowledge is unbelievable. That way no one could read what you are writing and some might think it's something intelligent instead of complete dribble.
This dispute smacks of crass commercialism: Who gets the tourist dollars by possessing his royal remains.
There is a far more important thing to consider:
Regardless of his royal trappings, Richard was a soldier who expressed his wish to be buried in his homeland.
It doesn't matter that the lands of Leicester and York are at peace and united under one ruler today; in his time they were at war, and he died fighting for York. To re-inter him in Leicester would be to ignore his wishes and deliberately abandon him to lie forever among those who during his lifetime, were his foe.
Leicester should do the honorable thing and return Richard's remains to his homeland of York to rest among those for whom he died.
Treating Richard III's bones as if they were Leicester's hotly guarded saintly relics, guaranteed to bring pilgrims to their cathedral, is disrespectful. He should be buried in York where he probably would've wanted to lie. However, if the dispute can't be settled (more Wars of the Roses?), then he should be buried in Westminster Cathedral or wherever other Plantagenet kings and queens are buried. How many of his distant descendants can be bothered to protest Leicester's grab for fame is irrelevant.
Drawing up a contract that guarantees retention of archaeological treasures, on spec, before anyone else can raise a protest, is a bit off. Let Leicester do all the research they need to do. Afterwards, though, it would be wrong for the king's remains to remain essentially where they fell in battle.
Save the hole in that parking lot for Prince Charles.
Meh. Leave it where they found it.
I am a United States citizen, and the real reason behind my support of this cause, other than being related to Richard III, is justice. Anyone who falls in battle is sent back home, they are not just buried where they fall. This is the same. Why anyone would object to a simple decent action that is allowed to any fallen warrior escapes me-- other than the wish for the tourist money that will be generated. The University of Leicester has done a great job with the discovery, and we owe them a debt of gratitude- but Richard III needs to be buried in York, where they love him to this day, not in the place where he was displayed after his death a short distance away. It's simple human decency.
@Charles,
Most soldiers who fall in battle are indeed buried where they fell. France, German, Italy, and the Pacific Islands are all a permanent resting place for many thousands of American soldiers if you want a modern example.
The practice of returning bodies home for burial began in the American Civil War as a part of an undertaking scam. Quack undertakers would take bodies from battlefields and, if they looked prosperous, would embalm them and then take them back home. The relatives would be presented with a body and a huge bill for the embalming and the cartage. A pretty cruel racket, don't you think.
@Charles Brunner, I completely agree with you. I don't see how anyone can protest otherwise. The one point I'd add is, if it simply isn't possible to bury him in York Minster, he should be reunited in Westminster Abbey with his wife, Anne. In any case, he should have a proper state funeral. He was an anointed King of England, and frankly, that he should be treated in any way as a tourist attraction, is both profoundly disrespectful and more than a little sick. Sad, too--as if his legacy hasn't been tormented enough. I find it genuinely touching that his distant relatives are speaking out for him. Somebody ought to, after all, since the current Queen apparently has so little conscience on the subject. (Yes, I'm disappointed in her response, or lack thereof.) And I say all this as someone who shares a common ancester (Rhys ap Tewdyr) with Henry VII! Yes, I'm one of 'them', I guess! ;-)...though heaven knows, with all my English and French ancesters, there's probably a bit of Plantagenet humming around in there somewhere too. Take care, and I hope you're able to attend Richard's services, should you wish to. I wish I could!
A human being deserves a dignified burial in accordance with his earthly desires and beliefs. If Richard III had some written account of where he wish to be buried, then there is where he should be interred. Otherwise, it should go to the family to decide, not a bunch of academics with a desire for tourist dollars.
I thought when the whole matter of the DNA came up, there were only two people whose ancestry could be traced by professional genealogists back to the family of Richard III. Now we suddenly have 9 people claiming a familial relationship with him. So what gives? Have there been professional genealogists that have verified that these people actually have a linage that traces back to him? Or are these people that have gotten on Ancestry.com, done some quick research (without verifying the sources) and suddenly are descendants of Richard III and his family? (This actually happens quite often. There is uncertainty in a line(s) but people accept it as part of their line because it "looks right", or "that's the same name as my ancestor" so that they can be connected to a royal family or major political family or otherwise famous ancestor or group. Then when a professional genealogist verifies the line, they find that assumptions made were incorrect and there is no family relationship).
Many individuals are descended from Richard's siblings, including quite a few Tudor kings and queens of England--since Henry VII married Richard's sister to help safeguard his takeover of the throne. What the Leicester researchers needed was not general descendants, but specifically matrilineal descendants--in other words, Richard and his sister both carried the matrilineal DNA of their own mother, and his sister passed it on to her daughters...and so on, and so on. But you need a daughter, only a daughter, to pass on this type of ancestral DNA. So if the line dies out in even just one generation to ONLY a son, you need to give up on that line, and look for another. Understandably, therefore, a "through the daughters only" line of descendants is harder to find! So those descendants of Richard's family are considerably rarer. There are MANY people who are related to him and his family, though. But few carry the matrilineal DNA that goes straight back to Richard's own mother, and that is what was needed to ID his remains.
In the interest of historical accuracy, it is important to note the Richard the III did not, in fact, die childless. Although his one legitimate heir (Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales) predeceased his father by one year, Richard had an illegitimate son (John of Gloucester, date of death unknown, but lived well into his 20's, referred to by his father as "our dear bastard son") and an illegitimate daughter (Katharine, who is believed to have died not long after her father, as her husband, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke, is listed as a widower in the early years of Henry VII).
Relatives can add drama to anything.