Last night upon the stair et.al.

Bill Barber makes some interesting points. I guess the Chain of Life concept lines up with the Devine Right of Kings as one is an extension of the other, and also with the Infallibility of the Pope if one were Catholic (which in those days and in that place most were). It was a way to make sense out of Life and try to bring some order to things. When war or chaos in Nature (like unbelievable snow storms!?)occured, it had to be as a result of someone or some group destroying the "natural order of things." It was also a useful tool to keep the masses in check.

It is incredibly hard to think like a medieval person, so all our attempts fall a bit short and we wind up judging their actions in light of our own times. Yes, some actions are intrinsically wrong in a certain society but not in all.

In any case, perhaps the "Amelia Earhart" bones story will allow us to bring up the "Princes" bones again and have another chance at having them re-analysed in light of current scientific knowledge. If not today, perhaps in the near future.

L.M.L.,
Janet

Bill Barber makes some interesting points. I guess the Chain of Life concept lines up with the Devine Right of Kings as one is an extension of the other, and also with the Infallibility of the Pope if one were Catholic (which in those days and in that place most were). It was a way to make sense out of Life and try to bring some order to things. When war or chaos in Nature (like unbelievable snow storms!?)occured, it had to be as a result of someone or some group destroying the "natural order of things." It was also a useful tool to keep the masses in check.

It is incredibly hard to think like a medieval person, so all our attempts fall a bit short and we wind up judging their actions in light of our own times. Yes, some actions are intrinsically wrong in a certain society but not in all.

In any case, perhaps the "Amelia Earhart" bones story will allow us to bring up the "Princes" bones again and have another chance at having them re-analysed in light of current scientific knowledge. If not today, perhaps in the near future.

L.M.L.,
Janet

On 19/12/2010 13:54, J. T, wrote:
> Bill Barber makes some interesting points. I guess the Chain of Life concept lines up with the Devine Right of Kings as one is an extension of the other, and also with the Infallibility of the Pope if one were Catholic (which in those days and in that place most were). It was a way to make sense out of Life and try to bring some order to things. When war or chaos in Nature (like unbelievable snow storms!?)occured, it had to be as a result of someone or some group destroying the "natural order of things." It was also a useful tool to keep the masses in check.
>
> It is incredibly hard to think like a medieval person, so all our attempts fall a bit short and we wind up judging their actions in light of our own times. Yes, some actions are intrinsically wrong in a certain society but not in all.
>
Isn't papal infallibility a nineteenth-century idea, and isn't it
restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements?

--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

"Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by
action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the
possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to
the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained
in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine
revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body
of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings
proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This
dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his
own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when
speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in
which the dogma applies."

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of
1870.

Flo


On Dec 19, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Christine Headley wrote:

> ex cathedra

--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Isn't papal infallibility a nineteenth-century idea, and isn't it
> restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements?
>
> --
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos


No, indeed. Papal infallibility was the hurdle Henry VIII couldn't get over when he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and remarry. Good Catholics had been managing to obtain good Catholic divorces and annulments for a long time, but Henry had to try to be some sort of bullheaded expert in Church law, and his position would have meant that a Papal ruling was incorrect -- ie fallible.

He couldn't get what he wanted, so he broke with the Pope and confiscated all Church property. And the rest is history.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Isn't papal infallibility a nineteenth-century idea, and isn't it
> > restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements?
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > Christine Headley
> > Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
> No, indeed. Papal infallibility was the hurdle Henry VIII couldn't get over when he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and remarry. Good Catholics had been managing to obtain good Catholic divorces and annulments for a long time, but Henry had to try to be some sort of bullheaded expert in Church law, and his position would have meant that a Papal ruling was incorrect -- ie fallible.
>
> He couldn't get what he wanted, so he broke with the Pope and confiscated all Church property. And the rest is history.
>
> Katy
>

The Pope was indeed the head of the Church back then, and his rule was law. But papal infallibility itself is another issue. It is just as Christine says - a 19th-century idea and of limited application (I had a Catholic upbringing, and we did all this at school).

The argument between Henry and the Pope didn't hinge on papal infallibility as such, then. There was an issue, in that according to Leviticus (which was held by the Church to be divine law) a man could not marry his brother's widow. The Church had its own marital prohibitions, which the Pope had the right to dispense, but the Levitican ones were held to be outside his remit.
In the King James version, the relevant verse from Leviticus reads: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness."
It was all very complicated because the Catholic Church, for one thing, regarded marriage in a different way from the people of the Old Testament. Traditionally, marriage had always been about a sexual union, but for a late-medieval Catholic, marriage began the moment promises were exhanged, and consummation had nothing to do with it. The justification in Leviticus for this prohibition, however, is wholly about sex. In that sense it is completely analagous to the Church's own prohibitions of "affinity", which were likewise prohibitions on marrying someone related to a previous sexual partner (spouse or otherwise).
So when Henry VII had sought a dispensation for Prince Henry to marry Catherine of Aragon, the Pope had well aware of Leviticus and had been keen to know whether her marriage to Prince Arthur had been consummated. Catherine always swore the marriage had not been consummated, but Henry VII said the opposite - he didn't really want Catherine to marry Prince Henry, he just wanted delaying tactics so save him having to return the dowry money. Eventually the dispensation was granted on the basis that the marriage had not been consummated.

When he wanted to divorce Catherine, Henry of course resurrected the claim that her marriage to Arthur had been consummated. But Catherine continued to maintain it hadn't. So it wasn't a case of the Pope refusing to admit that his predecessor had overlooked Leviticus in granting the dispensation - he clearly hadn't. The problem was
a) who to believe, and
b) which country he would least like to annoy, England or Spain.
I suspect the wishes of Spain weighed heavier with the Pope than those of little old England, as indeed they had first time around.

Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

... it wasn't a case of the Pope refusing to admit that his predecessor had overlooked Leviticus in granting the dispensation - he clearly hadn't. The problem was
> a) who to believe, and
> b) which country he would least like to annoy, England or Spain.
> I suspect the wishes of Spain weighed heavier with the Pope than those of little old England, as indeed they had first time around.


Ah...I had misunderstood. Thanks for the explanation.

Katy

Mm,

On second thoughts, Katy, I've somewhat overstated the case for Henry & Katherine's dispensation. Obviously Pope Julian was aware of Leviticus - he couldn't not be, and he had certainly been keen to get clarification on whether the marriage had been consummated or not. And I think most people believe Katherine was telling the truth and it hadn't been. And I expect Pope Julian believed that too.

But I seem to recall, actually, that the Pope's words meant more like "even if the marriage has been consummated" than "providing it has not been consummated." If so (and I have been searching online in vain for the original text of the dispensation), then Pope Julian was claiming to be able to dispense the (probably non-existent) Levitican prohibition itself. Whether he could or not is complicated by the fact that marrying one's brother's widow is positively recommended in Deuteronomy, another source of supposed Divine Law.

And, yes, Thomas More did argue that the Pope had the authority to do what he liked. But actually that hadn't been the general understanding up till then - nor afterwards. And it's not quite the same as the modern doctrine of infallibility.

So, in trying to accommodate Henry VII's insistence that Katherine and Arthur had had sex (when they almost certainly hadn't), Pope J. may have ruined what might otherwise have been a perfectly valid dispensation - or he might not, depending on how one views the conflict between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The question of whether an unconsummated marriage counted for Leviticus was not absolutely totally clear either, of course. Katherine's position was that it did not count and so any defects in the dispensation were irrelevant.

I would still say Henry's failure to get the divorce was due to politics rather than a brief papal fashion for infallibility - the Pope was not in a position to say no to Charles V.

Marie

P.S. Re the subject of whether Richard would have believed himself to have divine permission to commit heinous sins in the defence of his kingship: Henry VIII's divorce illustrates quite nicely how kings and queens actually tended to view their relationship to the Almighty. Henry and Katherine both demonstrate, in their explanations for the relative barrenness of their marriage, the idea that, even for kings and queens, bad deeds will have bad consequences. Henry blamed the lack of sons on the illicitness of the marriage itself, and Katherine on the innocent blood spilled to bring it about.








--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> ... it wasn't a case of the Pope refusing to admit that his predecessor had overlooked Leviticus in granting the dispensation - he clearly hadn't. The problem was
> > a) who to believe, and
> > b) which country he would least like to annoy, England or Spain.
> > I suspect the wishes of Spain weighed heavier with the Pope than those of little old England, as indeed they had first time around.
>
>
> Ah...I had misunderstood. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

Henry and Katherine both demonstrate, in their explanations for the relative barrenness of their marriage, the idea that, even for kings and queens, bad deeds will have bad consequences. Henry blamed the lack of sons on the illicitness of the marriage itself, and Katherine on the innocent blood spilled to bring it about.


I changed the subject line on this thread.

Speaking of innocent blood, and of Herod's slaughter of the first-borns as you were earlier, wasn't the Feast of the Innocents a significant and ominous day on the calendar. The Unlucky Day which must be avoided for important affairs?

An aversion to the commemoration of the murdered babies would be a bit more insight into the mindset of the period, and of Richard having still more reason not to have ordered the death of his brother's sons.

Katy

>
> Speaking of innocent blood, and of Herod's slaughter of the first-borns as you were earlier, wasn't the Feast of the Innocents a significant and ominous day on the calendar. The Unlucky Day which must be avoided for important affairs?

Indeed. And the day of the week on which it fell was held to be unlucky for the next twelve months. Coronations were usually held on a Sunday, but you may remember Edward IV originally set his coronation for a Sunday, then rescheduled it for the following Monday because the Feast of the Innocents in 1460 had fallen on a Sunday.


>
> An aversion to the commemoration of the murdered babies would be a bit more insight into the mindset of the period, and of Richard having still more reason not to have ordered the death of his brother's sons.
>
> Katy
>

I think so. It's all too easy simply to dismiss the era as rough or authoritarian (which of course it was), and therefore assume a king could get away with anything. If English kings could be secure from censure whatever they did, then we'd never have had the Wars of the Roses in the first place - and of course Richard would have announced the deaths of Edward IV's sons quite openly.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:

> It's all too easy simply to dismiss the era as rough or authoritarian (which of course it was), and therefore assume a king could get away with anything. If English kings could be secure from censure whatever they did, then we'd never have had the Wars of the Roses in the first place - and of course Richard would have announced the deaths of Edward IV's sons quite openly.
>


This has been said many times before, but perhaps it bears mentioning again that if it was important to Richard to have the boys killed, it would have been even more important for everyone to have known they were dead.

I suspect that that is the reason behind having important persons lie in state or in repose, in a public place, so the public can file by and be sure they're really dead...er...pay their respects. The corpse of Hotspur was dragged out of the grave and displayed, as I recall, to squelch the persistent rumors that he was not dead, just in hiding, awaiting the right moment to return and rally his followers.

Richard could have had the boys killed in any number of ways that would not leave an obvious mark, from poisoning to suffocation to drowning. Or some plausible "accident" could have befallen them. Boys that age do get into danger, climb too high or explore holes that fall in, don't you know. Get tired of shooting at butts and start practicing archery on each other. Decide to explore the mechanism for raising and lowering the portcullis on the main gate. Or there is the ever-popular accident on the stairs. I saw the rooms where they were last seen, in the upper rooms above the Water Gate of the Tower of London, and I can attest that the stairs leading to them are a literal death-trap. Narrow, steep, with strange turning angles, and every tread is a different width, every riser a different height, some twice that of others. I don't think it would be hard to believe that the boys fell to their deaths running up or down those stairs.

But if Richard wanted them dead, by all logic he would have made it known that they were dead and no longer available to their supporters. Put the corpses on display, have a lovely state funeral, and go on with his reign, all the more secure on the throne.

Having them simply disappear benefited no one, and it left the door open for this, that, or the other pretender to pop up for the next several decades. Which is exactly what happened.

Katy

"Having them simply disappear benefited no
one, and it left the door open for this,
that, or the other pretender to pop up for
the next several decades. Which is exactly
what happened."

Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it
was actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to
places of safety, although never to be seen publicly again.

Paul Neville


--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> > It's all too easy simply to dismiss the era as rough or authoritarian (which of course it was), and therefore assume a king could get away with anything. If English kings could be secure from censure whatever they did, then we'd never have had the Wars of the Roses in the first place - and of course Richard would have announced the deaths of Edward IV's sons quite openly.
> >
>
>
> This has been said many times before, but perhaps it bears mentioning again that if it was important to Richard to have the boys killed, it would have been even more important for everyone to have known they were dead.
>
> I suspect that that is the reason behind having important persons lie in state or in repose, in a public place, so the public can file by and be sure they're really dead...er...pay their respects. The corpse of Hotspur was dragged out of the grave and displayed, as I recall, to squelch the persistent rumors that he was not dead, just in hiding, awaiting the right moment to return and rally his followers.
>
> Richard could have had the boys killed in any number of ways that would not leave an obvious mark, from poisoning to suffocation to drowning. Or some plausible "accident" could have befallen them. Boys that age do get into danger, climb too high or explore holes that fall in, don't you know. Get tired of shooting at butts and start practicing archery on each other. Decide to explore the mechanism for raising and lowering the portcullis on the main gate. Or there is the ever-popular accident on the stairs. I saw the rooms where they were last seen, in the upper rooms above the Water Gate of the Tower of London, and I can attest that the stairs leading to them are a literal death-trap. Narrow, steep, with strange turning angles, and every tread is a different width, every riser a different height, some twice that of others. I don't think it would be hard to believe that the boys fell to their deaths running up or down those stairs.
>
> But if Richard wanted them dead, by all logic he would have made it known that they were dead and no longer available to their supporters. Put the corpses on display, have a lovely state funeral, and go on with his reign, all the more secure on the throne.
>
> Having them simply disappear benefited no one, and it left the door open for this, that, or the other pretender to pop up for the next several decades. Which is exactly what happened.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "Having them simply disappear benefited no
> one, and it left the door open for this,
> that, or the other pretender to pop up for
> the next several decades. Which is exactly
> what happened."
>
> Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it
> was actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to
> places of safety, although never to be seen publicly again.
>
> Paul Neville


I would say so. But that would still leave open the possibility Richard might have wanted to move them out of the Tower but not make a big secret of where they were once they were safely there. I don't believe the whereabouts of Edward Earl of Warwick were a secret, and he would have been a bigger danger to Richard and his heir than the two sons of Edward IV. An attainder is much easier to reverse than illegitimacy.

Katy

Katy

At 05:49 AM 12/21/2010, Paul Neville wrote:
>"Having them simply disappear benefited no one, and it left the door
>open for this, that, or the other pretender to pop up for the next
>several decades. Which is exactly what happened."
>
>Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it was
>actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to places of
>safety, although never to be seen publicly again.

Not if his primary objective was to save the boys' lives. Considering
the loyalty he showed Edward, it's not inconceivable that Richard
might put the boys' safety over political convenience. Challengers
would happen regardless, but Richard was no doubt secure in his own
military acumen and (mistakenly) confident of his followers' loyalty,
and considered himself able to handle any obstacle caused by the
Princes' absence.


Rogue

So taking this a hypothetical step forward, had Richard
won the day at Bosworth and had continued to reign, would
he at a later date have produced the real princes as proof
of their existence if such pretenders had appeared to
challenge for the throne?

Paul Neville.


--- In , Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
>
> At 05:49 AM 12/21/2010, Paul Neville wrote:
> >"Having them simply disappear benefited no one, and it left the door
> >open for this, that, or the other pretender to pop up for the next
> >several decades. Which is exactly what happened."
> >
> >Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it was
> >actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to places of
> >safety, although never to be seen publicly again.
>
> Not if his primary objective was to save the boys' lives. Considering
> the loyalty he showed Edward, it's not inconceivable that Richard
> might put the boys' safety over political convenience. Challengers
> would happen regardless, but Richard was no doubt secure in his own
> military acumen and (mistakenly) confident of his followers' loyalty,
> and considered himself able to handle any obstacle caused by the
> Princes' absence.
>
>
> Rogue
>

Entirely possible.



Richard wasn't the only late fifteenth century royal who needed to deal with
a rival: down in Castile, Isabel the Catholic contended against her
god-daughter and niece, Juana. Juana was commonly called "la Beltraneja"
because of the possibility that she may have been, not the daughter of king
Enrique IV of Castile but of Beltran de la Cueva, a favorite of Enrique and
some-time lover of queen Juana of Portugal (who claimed afterward that he
never much liked Juana's skinny legs). Isabel had a claim to the throne
both by blood, being the daughter of Juan II of Castile, and by contract
with Enrique, securing the right to succeed him as part of a deal to end the
civil war that had been tearing apart the kingdom. As it happened,
Enrique's allegiance went back to la Beltraneja and then back to Isabel, and
then to Juana and when he died in 1474, he hadn't settled the succession to
anyone's satisfaction. Isabel won the contest by quick action, good
publicity, and a wise choice of husband in Fernando of Aragon, who helped
her win a military action against Juana and her own supporter Afonso V of
Portugal.



Isabel handled the aftermath in this way: in 1479, she sat down with her
Portuguese aunt Beatriz, duchess of Viseu. Juana was consigned to a
convent, where, to the end of her life, in 1530, she signed herself "yo la
reina", and came to the attention of occasional suitors, including Fernando
himself after Isabel's death in 1504 (he married Germaine de Foix instead).
In spite of this, and mainly because Isabel and Fernando were so successful
at governing and controlling, Juana was never again considered a serious
threat to Isabel.



So it was demonstrably possible for a successful monarch to go about his or
her business with a ghost in the background, if handled correctly. Had
Richard won Bosworth, a good foundation for this handling would have been
laid.



If Richard had won at Bosworth, it would have been a parallel victory to the
battle of Toro which had secured things for Isabel. He could then retrieved
the princes without too much fear. In 1485, Edward would already have been
about 15, an age at which many young aristocrats and royals began (or had
already begun) political and military actions. If, within a year or two of
Bosworth, he would have decided to take action, he would already have been
considered a young adult. Consequences would have been regretted but viewed
as happening to an adult. Little Richard would have been around 12 in 1485
and would have to have been handled differently, but any action by Edward,
if he were defeated, would be understood by everyone to rebound against
Richard.



Maria

Elena@...







From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of pneville49
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 3:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Innocent blood (Last night upon the
stair et.al.





So taking this a hypothetical step forward, had Richard
won the day at Bosworth and had continued to reign, would
he at a later date have produced the real princes as proof
of their existence if such pretenders had appeared to
challenge for the throne?

Paul Neville.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Rogue <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> At 05:49 AM 12/21/2010, Paul Neville wrote:
> >"Having them simply disappear benefited no one, and it left the door
> >open for this, that, or the other pretender to pop up for the next
> >several decades. Which is exactly what happened."
> >
> >Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it was
> >actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to places of
> >safety, although never to be seen publicly again.
>
> Not if his primary objective was to save the boys' lives. Considering
> the loyalty he showed Edward, it's not inconceivable that Richard
> might put the boys' safety over political convenience. Challengers
> would happen regardless, but Richard was no doubt secure in his own
> military acumen and (mistakenly) confident of his followers' loyalty,
> and considered himself able to handle any obstacle caused by the
> Princes' absence.
>
>
> Rogue
>

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> "Having them simply disappear benefited no
> one, and it left the door open for this,
> that, or the other pretender to pop up for
> the next several decades. Which is exactly
> what happened."
>
> Wouldn`t that scenario also confound the theory of some that it
> was actually Richard who had the Princes rescued, conveyed to
> places of safety, although never to be seen publicly again.
>
> Paul Neville

Carol responds:
Not necessarily. If he wanted to make sure that they didn't fall into the hands of the Tudor's supporters (who would certainly kill them) and didn't want their whereabouts known to prevent an uprising in their favor, in which case he'd have them transported elsewhere secretly (not "rescued," unless you mean saved from "rescue" by dangerous men), he would have to risk having Edward (or Richard, if Edward for some reason died) pop up later as a pretender. As someone said earlier, that would be a concern for the future, not an immediate concern.

If Richard did hide the boys, he would have had to ignore (as he did) any rumors that the boys were dead--whereas if they *were* dead, he needed to announce their deaths and display their bodies to benefit (if being the rightful king by virtue of having murdered your nephews can be regarded as a benefit).

The question is, if Richard had won at Bosworth--thus "proving" to the medieval mind that he was the rightful king and that God was on hos side--and had continued to rule as he did at the beginning of his reign, with an emphasis on justice and the safety of his subjects, who besides a few malcontents who had lost their positions when Richard came to power would want to restore a deposed and possibly illegitimate boy king?

We can speculate, but we can't know. But until More's so-called Historie is proven to be a heap of rubbish by an examination of the bones in the Tower, the good that Richard did and the type of king he tried to be will be obscured by rumor, propaganda, and invention masquerading as truth.

Carol, who believes that Margaret of York opposed Henry VII and sheltered Richard's followers after Bosworth because she approved of Richard's kingship (and knew exactly where their nephews were living because he had placed their safety in her hands)