Search for lost king turns to Alfred after discovery of Richard III (From Hampshire Chronicle)

I Thought the saying was rest in peace
not rest in peace intill we decide to dig you up and carry out research on your skeleton.?

I was one of the Archaeologists who directed excavations at Hyde Abbey in the late 1990's which confirmed that Alfreds remains no longer lay in that area. Where the grave had been was destroyed by earlier excavations and by WWII Communal Air raid shelters. There is no reason to doubt the likelihood that the bones which have lain undisturbed in the grounds of Hyde (St Barts) church for over a century could well be the redeposited bones of Alfred. I would strongly oppose the exhumation of the remains at the church solely for the reason of satisfying curiosity.
There is no good scientific argument for why we need to disturb a burial in a Christian graveyard. It will not prove the remains belong to Alfred. Furthermore it goes against good practice in modern archaeology which is only to disturb threatend sites or sites which will yield very important data and even then only with the understanding that you are destroying the relationships of that data for future generations.

The bones have 'only' been in their current location for about 100 years - their relationship with their original and subsequent burial sites has already been lost (twice).