After his misdeeds, there should be no Scots commemoration of Richard III

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.