Tom Mackenzie: Time to give Richard III a Royal funeral

The bones of King Richard III are now awaiting disposal.

When permission was sought for the highly speculative dig to uncover them from the Leicester city car park where they had lain undisturbed for 528 years the Ministry of Justice gave the nod and indicated that if authenticated they should be re-interred in the city's cathedral. First of all I have to ask who has rights over a monarch's remains?

I doubt very much if the Ministry of Justice or indeed any of the secular authorities have such rights.

Were they to exist anywhere - apart from 'finders, keepers' – I would have thought they rested with the monarch of the day under perhaps advice from the ecclesiastical authorities. So, prime minister, please butt out!

BUY NOW - PAY NEXT MONTH (on all floor sanding works)

Plymouth Floor Sanding

View details

Print voucher

This voucher if printed off and given to us on the day of the quotation entitles you to have your floor sanding work completed, you pay a small deposit & then pay next month.

Terms: 1 voucher per person.
1 voucher per household.
Payment to be settled in full 28 days from completion date (+10% charge).
A payment contract will be signed.

Contact: 01752 421711

Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013

Richard, we now know, was a genuinely good king. Apart from being anointed and therefore a totally bona fide one with a genuine claim to the throne – unlike his successor – he carried out a whole range of enlightened measures during his two short years as monarch. Forensic examination of the skeleton has told us a great deal; much of it extraordinary. He was neither a freak, as Shakespeare wrote, nor was he ugly (evil looking) as the Bard also insisted. He certainly died violently; but in view of his very slight almost female-like-frame and physical disabilities his final sortie into a melee of armoured knights to cut down his usurper rival would have won him a posthumous Victoria Cross in today's world. So, a hero too! Let us look at his personality and character – again hugely disparaged by Shakespeare. Shrinks have examined his whole conduct throughout the thirty two year of his life and they paint a most sympathetic profile. They point to a sad and difficult childhood which nevertheless led to an empathetic man with loyal instincts who most certainly knew the difference between right and wrong and who was extremely pious.

Goodbye, we have to say, to the idea that such a man could have murdered his two young nephews, the 'princes in the tower'. Nowadays Richard's disability, his scoliosis sideways bent spine, would have evoked great sympathy. Then, poor Richard, would have been regarded as a pitiable object of scorn rejected by God. But his disability would only have been known to his family and doubtless the aristocracy (people like to titter) but not, I suspect, to the general public. Medieval attire of the time with its raised and puffed up shoulders would easily have camouflaged the lower than other shoulder. The deeds attributed to this "accursed of God', Richard have him to be a schizophrenic, psychopathic and modern medics insist he was nothing of the sort. So clearly we are going to have to re-write our history books.

We may continue to enjoy Shakespeare's play for its powerful drama, but dismiss its history content. We should do exactly the same with Scotland's much maligned king, Macbeth. But at least the Bard proved himself even handed in rubbishing the kings of both kingdoms. History, we have to acknowledge, was not Shakespeare's forte. As for Richard's treatment after his heroic death in action, on that occasion the victor, Henry Tudor, let himself down very badly. No chivalric generosity from him to his fallen foe brought down by treachery, but vilification and humiliation. When was ever a king of England stripped naked and slung over a ass for all to see on a fifteen mile journey from the battlefield to the nearest town. in this case Leicester? Along the way ignorant locals were encouraged to insult the former king and one went so far as to plunge his dagger so deep into the king's' buttock that it went right through and damaged the pelvis. And when was a king of England dumped unceremoniously into a hastily dug hole without so much as a shroud to cover his nakedness, much less a coffin. I am sure that the friars who attended had never seen a burial quite like it in their friary or anywhere else for that matter and would have wished it otherwise. But they would have been scared stiff of the mailed ruffians who dumped the body on them and of showing the proper respect which was due. They obviously were told to get rid of it quick and were not minded to disobey or show any form of reverence. Just a few whispered words of the sacraments would have been permitted. Only such a scenario could account for the utter disrespect of it all.

We have much to apologise for to that fallen monarch whose character we then went on to impugn for a full five hundred years with a litany of the most dreadful lies. It seems to me that our Queen is the one best placed to set the seal on this final verdict of history. She is, after all, his successor and a devout Christian, like him. It will not do for a lesser royal than her to attend the re-internment. To do so would be to suggest that she does not accept the forensic and psychiatric evidence which has exonerated Richard. That would be ungracious, to say the least, even unwise. I feel she is duty bound to close this final chapter with the dignity it deserves. 538 years is a long time for her ancestor to stand falsely accused.

When the murdered Tsar's remains were found the Russian state decided to do right by him by ceremoniously re-interring the bones in the St Petersburg home of Russian Tsars and the president, Boris Yeltsin attended. England can do no less for the last of the Plantagenets, its longest reigning dynasty. This great saga of English kingship can only be brought to a fitting conclusion, in my view, by burial in Westminster Abbey, the most ancient and hallowed resting place of England's kings and where most of Richard's ancestors lie. A final, powerful argument for the Abbey is the fact that his beloved wife and Queen – Anne Neville – whose loss he is said to have caused him to cry at her funeral (strange thing for a psychopath) is buried there.

Our Queen is said to have not much liked the Duchess of Windsor and her mother positively loathed her. But neither denied her right to have her body brought back from exile and laid to rest beside that of her husband, the former Edward Vlll. Richard has that right too. Finally the 'Friends of Richard lll Society' are to be congratulated for their steadfastness over the generations in believing that England never had such a wicked king and that Richard was a good man with the right instincts. Most of all the young woman who spearheaded the efforts to find Richard is the true heroine of it all.