I NOTE with interest your report about the demand by a number of descendants of Richard III that his remains be reburied in York ("Richard III descendants demand king's York burial", The Herald, February 25).
Given that Richard had only one child born in wedlock, who died aged eight, I would suggest that such a demand merely confirms that, in addition to his other crimes, Richard was also an adulterer. I would also suggest that, as he was the last English commander to capture the Scottish royal burgh of Berwick-upon-Tweed, the further away from Scotland he is reburied the better.
Finally, the existence of a Scottish branch of the Richard III Society is to be deplored.
Dr Alexander S Waugh,
1 Pantoch Gardens,
Banchory.
THE discovery of Richard III's bones sent me back to my history book to have another look at the Wars of the Roses, their battles, participants and results. I had always been given to understand that Henry Tudor, a Lancastrian, whose claim to the throne was tenuous, strengthened it by marrying Elizabeth of York, sister and successor to her brother, Edward V, the older of the murdered Princes in the Tower. Henry was crowned King Henry VII and Elizabeth was his consort, but not assigned a number. But if anyone was a consort, surely it should have been Henry, with Elizabeth being Queen Regnant, not unlike the William and Mary duo of the 1690s, Mary having the superior claim and having been given a number, Mary II. Good Queen Bess would then have been designated Elizabeth II, making our present Queen Elizabeth III, all of England, of course.
I wonder if any reader can clarify this.
Moira Cherrie,
Nethercraigs,
36 Crawford Road, Burnside, Rutherglen.
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