In an e-mail dated 25th September 2012, the Head of University of Leicester Archaeological Services (Mr Richard Buckley) wrote inter alios [sic, and God alone knows why] to the Head of Leicester Arts and Museums Services (Ms Sarah Levitt) [and] another member of the University (Mr Richard Taylor) stating:“I accept that there are conflicting views of where the reburial should be and that these need to be taken into account.”Mr Taylor replied: “We should work together to make sure that we retain as much control as possible. I think that the question is ‘Leicester is the plan, are there reasons why not?’ rather than ‘Where should he be reinterred?’.The Claimant has not (yet) been provided with a copy of Ms Levitt’s reply. Further, an undated press release prepared by the University of Leicester (which has come into the possession of the Claimant) states under the heading “What about alternative locations to Leicester?” as follows:“If and when the identity of the remains are confirmed, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan.” This sentence does not appear in the press release as published on 14th January 2013. It is not clear why.
such remains no later than 31st August 2014 “to be deposited at the Jewry Wall Museum or else be reinterred at St Martins Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place”
18.Counsel for the Plantagenet Alliance submitthat the law of England is not simply based on “finders keepers”, particularly where the remains of a former King ofEngland are concerned. There is obvious force in this submission.