From Revd Peter Blackman
Sir, - When I was Vicar of Groby, about five miles west of
Leicester, a second county primary school was opened in the parish,
and called The Elizabeth Woodville School. Elizabeth was associated
with Groby because her first husband was John Grey, and his home
was The Old Hall in Groby. After they had had two sons, Thomas and
Richard, John was killed fighting for the Lancastrians against the
Yorkists in the Wars of the Roses. Shortly afterwards, the Yorkists
won, and Edward IV replaced Henry VI as King. Edward married the
widowed Elizabeth.
The Earl of Warwick (the King-maker) and other leading
supporters of Edward disapproved of this marriage for three
reasons. Elizabeth was only the daughter of a knight. Her family
were Lancastrians, not Yorkists. She was one of a very large family
who gained promotion through the Queen.
Until about ten years ago, when Professor Arlene Okerland
published her biography Elizabeth Wydeville: The slandered
queen, the history of this Queen Elizabeth was based on the
opinions of her critics, and was quite slanderous. Elizabeth was a
devout and active Christian. She insisted that she would not be
Edward's mistress: either he married her or they would have no
intercourse. There was an earlier occasion when she had given a
lead to help a farmer whose home was burnt. She refounded Queens'
College, Cambridge. At the end of her life, she lived in Bermondsey
Abbey.
When Edward IV died, his young son succeeded as King Edward V.
His uncle, then Duke of Gloucester, became his regent. He
immediately became the chief adversary of dowager Queen Elizabeth,
whom he hated. Having taken control of the boy king, he had his
former carers, Elizabeth's brother Earl Rivers, and her second son,
Richard Grey, put to death at Pontefract. Then he impeached and
killed Lord Hastings, a leading friend and adviser of Edward IV;
and later had the Duke of Buckingham executed at Salisbury, despite
both these peers' having supported his regency.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that, guilty of these four
murders, Richard III, as he became, was also responsible for the
murder of the boy King Edward and his younger brother in the Tower
of London.
So Richard III murdered at least six people in order to steal
the sovereignty of our country. To give him a last resting-place in
any consecrated church or churchyard is inappropriate. To suggest
that this might be a means of attracting visitors to that place is
disgraceful. The Christian Church does not further its mission of
love by making evil attractive.
PETER BLACKMAN
25 Turnbull Road
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 7LY
From the Revd Dr Nicholas W. S. Cranfield
Sir, - I have been surprised by the alacrity with which some
ecclesiastics have showered the last Yorkist king with claims for
his reburial as if this were part of a competition being run by the
heritage industry.
The grant of the exhumation licence does not need to settle the
matter, as it is open to appeal, and it may be possible to show
that the Ministry of Justice has exceeded its remit in the unusual
case of handling royal remains. Unless the the Ministry can cite
precedent, it would be appropriate for the Minister to advise the
Crown and establish the Crown's wish in this unique matter.
But, wherever the king's last mortal remains are re-interred,
there can be no funeral service. It is unthinkable that Richard III
was buried in the choir of a monastic foundation without
appropriate rites, no matter how hurried and how discreetly
performed these may have been. There can therefore be no reason to
duplicate them now. I suspect also that enough requiems have
already been said over the years.
NICHOLAS CRANFIELD
10 Duke Humphrey Road
London SE3 0TY
