I've thought long and hard about replying on this thread. First and foremost I feel it important that we remember the impact this small island nation has had in the eyes of the rest of the world. That is in no small due to our monarchy, much of whose costs are funded by the Queen these days.
Richard III is much reviled according to the history books, but as someone once said....history is always written by the winners, and thus the truth is not necessarily the true case. Much of Richard's ignominious reputation can be laid at the door of William Shakespeare and his interpretation in his play Richard III.
Whilst our present Queen has no direct lineage to the Plantagenet line, only through Elizabeth of York's marriage to Henry VII, it was fitting that she paid some sort of homage to a previous monarch.
With regard to the expense of Richard III's interment - as a previous poster said, much of the money has been raised through subscription, Leicester Cathedral have funding in place, plus the revenue from tourism. I would think the taxpayer would come off pretty lightly, despite what others on this forum think. To my mind, having been born at Middleham in North Yorkshire and a scion of the House of York, Richard should have been interred in Yorkminster.
My own view is that our current Monarchy is still a far better alternative to a United Kingdom/GB President, and would cost the taxpayer less money. Furthermore if there were more nurses and less grey suits running the NHS we'd be quids in.