Let the king rest where he fell

The discovery in Leicester and subsequent identification of the skeleton of King Richard III of England (1483-85) now raises the issue: Where shall the king's remains be re-interred? Through your illustrious columns, may I make five points:

1. As head of the Church of England, it is for Queen Elizabeth II, personally, to determine the site of re-interment in consecrated ground.

2. There is no rule of law or convention that an English/British sovereign should be buried in London, Windsor or Edinburgh. At his own request, King John (1199-1216) was interred in the nave at Worcester Cathedral. King Edward II (1307-1327), subsequent to his murder locally, was buried at Gloucester Cathedral.

3. King Richard III died in battle in Leicestershire. His remains have been buried there for almost 528 years. Why not leave them there, by re-interment at Leicester Cathedral?

4. The archaeological find was carried out under the auspices of the University of Leicester, which, in the early days of DNA testing, pioneered this branch of science more than any other university in the world.

5. In my opinion, to re-inter the skeleton elsewhere would be a great snub to the residents and natives of Leicestershire.

Rodney Griffith

Bangkok