The living descendants of Richard III have demanded his remains are reburied in York, setting his family at odds with those who sensationally located the grave of the last Plantagenet king.
The monarch's 500-year-old skeleton was identified earlier this month after it was un-covered during an archaeological dig at a council car park in Leicester last year.
The remains are due to be re-interred at Leicester Cathedral next year despite campaigns to bring them to York.
Yesterday, nine of Richard III's descendants said they believed the king, the last monarch of the House of York, would have wanted to be buried in the city.
They said in a statement: "We, the under-named, do hereby most respectfully demand 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. We believe that such an interment was the desire of King Richard in life and we have written this statement so his wishes may be fully recognised and upheld."
They added: "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 under-named blood descendants, unreservedly believe 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 search for the king's remains was orchestrated by Philippa Langley, an Edinburgh-based screenwriter and secretary of the Scottish branch of the Richard III Society. Experts from Dundee University led the facial reconstruction of the monarch.
Richard grew up at Middleham Castle in the Yorkshire Dales and visited York several times during his 26-month reign.
Earlier this month, city leaders in York said they were to write to the Queen in a bid to get Richard's remains returned to his "spiritual home". A petition calling for him to be reinterred at York has been signed by more than 23,000 people.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article