THE High Court has ruled it is time for the remains of Richard III "to be given a dignified re-burial, and finally laid to rest" - in Leicester Cathedral.
But a group formed by some of the king's distant relatives are considering whether to appeal against the decision. They want the king re-interred at York Minster.
Richard's battle-scarred bones were found under a council car park in Leicester in 2012. Centuries earlier, in August 1485, he had become the last English king to die in battle.
Three judges rejected an attempt by the Plantagenet Alliance, acting on behalf of the monarch's "collateral descendants", to force Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to set up a wide-ranging public consultation exercise to decide where his final resting place should be.
The judges ruled there were no legal reasons why plans to re-bury him at Leicester Cathedral should not go ahead.
The costly legal challenge has led to angry condemnation of the Alliance by Mr Grayling, but the group says it raised an issue of legitimate public interest.
It is understood that, by mid-March, the Government had run up costs of £82,000 on the legal battle.
There was applause at Leicester Cathedral as Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens read out the High Court decision in London at 10am to a crowd of supporters and media.
The lawyer who spearheaded the alliance's legal challenge described the court's verdict as "highly regrettable".
Matthew Howarth, partner at Yorkshire law firm Gordons, said an appeal was now under consideration.
The Alliance claimed the exhumation licence granted by the Justice Secretary in September 2012 to the University of Leicester was legally flawed because he had not attached conditions ordering consultations on re-interment.
Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 - ending the Wars of the Roses and the Plantagenet dynasty.
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