His Majesty's remains

Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols maybe. Now that would be side-splitting...

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
>

I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.

George


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

> Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
>
>

 
I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.

George 

Pamela responds:
Presumably the Royal representative will be Duke Richard of Gloucester, not only is he the Patron of the Richard III Society, but he shares name and title with our Richard.



On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

> Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
>
>

We don't have a Duchess of York - the Duke is Prince Andrew.  I think the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are  perhaps who you meant?  The Archbishop of York would be good but I'm not sure if he would/could do it if it was Leicester.  I have no idea of the politics  (in church terms) but I know there will be some!


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 15:40
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains

 
I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.

George

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <mailto:merriannmclain%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
>
>

I've already said: 'The Most Rev Vincent Nichols maybe'. He is, as Archbishop of Westminster, the senior Catholic in the country. The archbishop of York being CHURCH OF ENGLAND, would the ex-King appprove of his reinternment in heretical hands...?!

;)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> We don't have a Duchess of York - the Duke is Prince Andrew.  I think the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are  perhaps who you meant?  The Archbishop of York would be good but I'm not sure if he would/could do it if it was Leicester.  I have no idea of the politics  (in church terms) but I know there will be some!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 15:40
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>  
> I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
> All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.
>
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <mailto:merriannmclain%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?

I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."

I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.

And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?

~Weds


--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.

If you go to Buckingham Palaces website http://www.royal.gov.uk/ there is a
link to ask the Queen a Question or Contact a member of the Royal Family...
Then you can get it straight from the 'horses mouth' so to speak...!

I would think that she is interested in events but as Phil Stone said in an
interview something along the lines of ' it may seem inappropriate that
vast amounts of ýý be spent on a long deceased monarch as the state of the
economy is in such a poor shape.'
Perhaps we should all just wait & see what happens in the New Year!



On 16 December 2012 14:55, wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is
> the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
>
> I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have
> preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery
> be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a
> source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our
> power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead
> house is unworthy of our attention."
>
> I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be
> something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed
> entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if
> the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they
> may not be very happy about it.
>
> And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has
> supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would
> hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield
> <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that
> HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall
> any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was
> after all an anointed crowned head of state.
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Weds, it's so funny! I was just wondering about the same thing!!!

And thinking why the Queen cannot come to the burial..... Or at least Charles. A king is being buried after all.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 16, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
>
> I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
>
> I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
>
> And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
>
>

Do you really want to start me on this one?

Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.

----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains



I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?

I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."

I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.

And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?

~Weds

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.

The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Do you really want to start me on this one?
>
> Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
>
> I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
>
> I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
>
> And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains



The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Do you really want to start me on this one?
>
> Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
>
> I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
>
> I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
>
> And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> >
> > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> >
> > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> >
> > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> >
> > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.

As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains



Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> >
> > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> >
> > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> >
> > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> >
> > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > >
> > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > >
> > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > >
> > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains



Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > >
> > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > >
> > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > >
> > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 21:56
Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains

 
Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains

Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > >
> > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > >
> > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > >
> > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Her namesake being... Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen?

Or do you know something about Elizabeth I the rest of us don't...

About half of us (the English) are descended from William I

By crude maths, that means about a quarter have Edward III in their tree.

And that the vast majority are descended from Jesus.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 21:56
Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains


 
Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains

Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > >
> > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > >
> > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > >
> > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If he is a true Yorkshireman then he would most certainly see the funny side to the situation however I feel that it would be unlikely to be a full Roman Catholic burial as we probably would have to perform the full liturgy in Latin, Monks are getting to be high on the endangered species list and as for Latin castrata within the ranks of the church to sing, I can suggest a short list!


Invenerunt me et ostendam vobis mendax publica honesta

Georgius



On Dec 16, 2012, at 1:37 PM, blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:

> I've already said: 'The Most Rev Vincent Nichols maybe'. He is, as Archbishop of Westminster, the senior Catholic in the country. The archbishop of York being CHURCH OF ENGLAND, would the ex-King appprove of his reinternment in heretical hands...?!
>
> ;)
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > We don't have a Duchess of York - the Duke is Prince Andrew.ý I think the Duke and Duchess of Gloucesterý areý ý perhaps who you meant?ý The Archbishop of York would be good but I'm not sure if he would/could do it if it was Leicester.ý I have no idea of the politicsý (in church terms) but I know there will be some!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 15:40
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> > ý
> > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
> > All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <mailto:merriannmclain%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Marie responds:
I think Stephen meant Elizabeth of York, mother of Henry VIII (hence his reference to 1509).

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Her namesake being... Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen?
>
> Or do you know something about Elizabeth I the rest of us don't...
>
> About half of us (the English) are descended from William I
>
> By crude maths, that means about a quarter have Edward III in their tree.
>
> And that the vast majority are descended from Jesus.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 21:56
> Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>  
> Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
> Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
> >
> > As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> > James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> > 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: blancsanglier1452
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > > >
> > > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > > >
> > > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > > >
> > > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, as I said several times yesterday!

----- Original Message -----
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains



Her namesake being... Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen?

Or do you know something about Elizabeth I the rest of us don't...

About half of us (the English) are descended from William I

By crude maths, that means about a quarter have Edward III in their tree.

And that the vast majority are descended from Jesus.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 21:56
Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains



Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.

----- Original Message -----
From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains

Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
>
> Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > >
> > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > >
> > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > >
> > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thankyou, Marie. I thought it was crystal clear.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains



Marie responds:
I think Stephen meant Elizabeth of York, mother of Henry VIII (hence his reference to 1509).

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Her namesake being... Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen?
>
> Or do you know something about Elizabeth I the rest of us don't...
>
> About half of us (the English) are descended from William I
>
> By crude maths, that means about a quarter have Edward III in their tree.
>
> And that the vast majority are descended from Jesus.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 21:56
> Subject: Re: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
>
> Â
> Not only is Elizabeth II directly descended from her namesake, there must be thousands of people who can almost recite the link from memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
>
> Thank you for explaining who Elizabeth of York was. The current claimant to the throne does NOT have a blood claim from 1485. Or from 1154. Your mention of 1509 is bizarrely disingenuous to say the least. Anyway, good night bro.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > It isn't anything of the sort. The present Queen is the direct descendant of Elizabeth of York, who was Edward IV's daughter.
> >
> > As for seniority, Henry VIII's legitimate line died out by 1603 and his brothers had no heirs.
> > James VII/II's legitimate line was thought to have died out in 1714 - although his son James Edward was probably legitimate, the Act of Succession precluded him before that date. Charles II's descendants were numerous but all were illegitimate.
> > 1837 saw a Queen Regnant marry and be succeeded by her own descendants - for the first time in England.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: blancsanglier1452
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the indirect acknowledgemnt that your use of the word 'directly' was absolutely inaccurate.
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The line of general descent is unbroken. The line of male descent was broken only in 1603, 1714 and 1901. The Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act qualify natural succession by requiring the monarch to be a non-Catholic and legitimate, with parents married by permission of the monarch at the time.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: blancsanglier1452
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The line has actually been broken at least twice if not three times, so although there is a 'connection', it's no more 'direct' than my own.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you really want to start me on this one?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the whole Royal family since 1509 has been directly descended from the Tydder and Elizabeth of York (legitimised in 1486). The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are both descended from the earlier Mortimer-Percy marriage.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:55 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a perhaps delicate question, and please forgive my ignorance. Is the Queen at all related to the Plantagenets?
> > > >
> > > > I guess what I'm actually asking is if the current government might have preferred that R3's remains to never have been found? Might their discovery be an "inconvenience," or a source of irritation/competition, rather than a source of pride? As in, "We wish to remain in the here and now where our power is focused, and the remains of a villainous, usurped king from a dead house is unworthy of our attention."
> > > >
> > > > I'm just getting the impression that the Matter of Richard III might be something Certain People of Consequence would rather went away or stayed entrenched in the traditionalist view. Yes, they have to deal with it if the DNA supports that the remains are his. But I get the impression they may not be very happy about it.
> > > >
> > > > And then I remember the current Duke of Gloucester, am grateful he has supported the Society for so long, and feel even more confused. I would hope he officiates, but might someone else order him not to?
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re. C of E versus RC bishop - maybe Richard, as a king, would approve of the extension of royal power above that of the pope? Of course, it WAS a Tudor who instigated it...

I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> I think that it would depend on what level of pomp and circumstance that HM Gov. decide should it be proved to be R3.To my knowledge I cannot recall any prior occurrence of the loss and discovery of a King of England he was after all an anointed crowned head of state.
> At least a bishop maybe the Archbishop of York and probably a member of the Royal Family The Duke and Dutchess of York?
> All depends on the indisputable proof that the remains are that of R3, the Daily Mail probably is not the best authority on these matters.
>
> George 
>
> Pamela responds:
> Presumably the Royal representative will be Duke Richard of Gloucester, not only is he the Patron of the Richard III Society, but he shares name and title with our Richard.
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> > Journalistic integrity aside, if these are HM bones, the question is less where to re-inter but who officiates. The debate could be very entertaining, but I have a very warped sense of humor.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....

Marie replies:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death. Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, that is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.



And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

Marie replies:
I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
>
> Marie:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly -

Katy:

Someone -- was it you, Marie? -- also suggested that the friars wanted to inter Richard in the place of greatest honor within the sanctuary and there was not space enough for a coffin there, thus he was buried in a shroud.

Katy

Marie,
I agree with you that his judgement was impaired by depression. He was a king but also a man. He would have to be Shakespearean villain( sarcasm) to have been immune to so many losses and so much treachery.
I do want to give Henry vii benefit of doubt But considering how Hvii treated Richard's body, it is really hard to stay dispassionate......
Katy,
that might be it! At least that would make me feel a little better:)

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:11 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
>
> Marie replies:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death. Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, that is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.
>
> And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> > On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......
>
> Marie replies:
> I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.
>
>

They may have been told just to get rid of the body with the minimum amount of fuss and certainly not bringing any attention to the burial other than assuring that it was a christian burial. As his body had been hanging around for a number of days. one can only imagine what state it may have been in, so a quick hole and minimum covering.
Can anyone shed light on the discovery of a boar emblem found with the remains , or is this an other fine example of journalistic fiction?

George

On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:11 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
>
> Marie replies:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death. Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, that is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.
>
> And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> > On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......
>
> Marie replies:
> I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.
>
>

As I originally said, in reading the comments section of the Daily Mail, I came across an anonymous person who said it was an open secret at the BBC that the remains were found with some jewelry that had "a royal crest." I speculated about the boar symbol. So it's not journalistic malfeasance just me putting up an interesting rumor. Hope it turns out to be true but who knows? Maire.

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:

They may have been told just to get rid of the body with the minimum amount of fuss and certainly not bringing any attention to the burial other than assuring that it was a christian burial. As his body had been hanging around for a number of days. one can only imagine what state it may have been in, so a quick hole and minimum covering.
Can anyone shed light on the discovery of a boar emblem found with the remains , or is this an other fine example of journalistic fiction?

George

On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:11 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:



--- In , "bandyoi" wrote:

I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....

Marie replies:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death. Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, that is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.

And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

Marie replies:
I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.

Anonymous people giving vague information.......the plot thickens.....I think that I will still wait till the fat lady sings hopefully from Leicester Uni
George

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2012, at 9:37 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> As I originally said, in reading the comments section of the Daily Mail, I came across an anonymous person who said it was an open secret at the BBC that the remains were found with some jewelry that had "a royal crest." I speculated about the boar symbol. So it's not journalistic malfeasance just me putting up an interesting rumor. Hope it turns out to be true but who knows? Maire.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> They may have been told just to get rid of the body with the minimum amount of fuss and certainly not bringing any attention to the burial other than assuring that it was a christian burial. As his body had been hanging around for a number of days. one can only imagine what state it may have been in, so a quick hole and minimum covering.
> Can anyone shed light on the discovery of a boar emblem found with the remains , or is this an other fine example of journalistic fiction?
>
> George
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:11 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" wrote:
>
> I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
>
> Marie replies:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death. Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, that is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.
>
> And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......
>
> Marie replies:
> I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie Said:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming.

Elaine's reply:
The comparison with his own funeral arrangements speaks volumes as to both his character and meanness of spirit in that for himself he wanted a lavish monument and for his shrine to stand beside the tomb of Henry VI. He was hoping to bask in the reflected glory of Henry VI whom it was hoped would have achieved cannonisation by this time. The original intended site was to be a new chapel on the site of Henry III's Chapel of St Edward at Windsor Castle; however, Henry accepted the claim of the monks of Westminster that Henry VI had planned to be buried near to the shrine of Edward the Confessor. This led to the demolition of the original thirteenth-century chapel and the construction of the chapel now known as Henry VII's chapel. As the cannonisation process did not progress as expected and Henry VI's body remained at Windsor, Henry VII's tomb was placed where the VI's Henry was meant to be interred. The cost was almost £20,000; this does not take into account the continuing costs for decoration, which continued after Henry's death in 1509. Although the building accounts have not survived, which would have enabled identification of the builder, it is assumed that he was one of the king's master masons who had made estimates for Henry's tomb in 1506 namely Robert Vertue, Robert Janyns and John Lebons with Janyns being the most likely candidate.
As to the monument itself, Henry stipulated that there be visible representations:

"I trust also to the singular mediations and prayers of all the holy company of heaven: that is to say, Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins, and especially to mine accustomed Avouries I call and cry."

In addition, the tomb was originally to be black and white marble with bronze statues and kneeling effigies. The space behind the altar originally intended for the re-interred bones of Henry VI, was used instead for the tomb of Henry and Elizabeth of York when Henry VIII disregarded his father's wishes. This never happened as Henry the son failed to carry out the instructions in the Will and he appears to have intended the centre of the chapel for his own tomb.
The fact that Henry took great pains as to how he wished his own funerary monument to be is revealing. The comparisons between himself and the arrangements for an anointed king such as Richard, and even Elizabeth Woodville, who had been Queen Consort to Edward IV, reveals someone lacking largess of spirit as should become a ruling monarch or even a member of the aristocracy. It reveals a little man, without class or nobility.
Elaine



--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:



--- In , "bandyoi" wrote:

I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....

Marie replies:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death.Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.



And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

Marie replies:
I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.

Hi, All -
Speaking of Fat (and Brutal) Hal - there is a real contrast with the conscientiousness and moral rectitude shown by Our Richard, isn't there? Giving his father (and Edmund, I presume) and HVI the reburials they deserved. It indicates not only a conscientious but a self-effacing personality. All the more reason he should now, finally, be given a funeral befitting an anointed king.

Also, I have bought for my kindle an ebook which supposedly exposes Fat Hal for what he was. It's called *Blood Will Tell.* Has anyone read it? I hope that the "blood" that will "tell" is not his relationship to Richard!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: ellrosa1452
Sent: 18 Dec 2012 23:18:01 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains/Treatment of Richard


Marie Said:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming.

Elaine's reply:
The comparison with his own funeral arrangements speaks volumes as to both his character and meanness of spirit in that for himself he wanted a lavish monument and for his shrine to stand beside the tomb of Henry VI. He was hoping to bask in the reflected glory of Henry VI whom it was hoped would have achieved cannonisation by this time. The original intended site was to be a new chapel on the site of Henry III's Chapel of St Edward at Windsor Castle; however, Henry accepted the claim of the monks of Westminster that Henry VI had planned to be buried near to the shrine of Edward the Confessor. This led to the demolition of the original thirteenth-century chapel and the construction of the chapel now known as Henry VII's chapel. As the cannonisation process did not progress as expected and Henry VI's body remained at Windsor, Henry VII's tomb was placed where the VI's Henry was meant to be interred. The cost was almost £20,000; this does not take into account the continuing costs for decoration, which continued after Henry's death in 1509. Although the building accounts have not survived, which would have enabled identification of the builder, it is assumed that he was one of the king's master masons who had made estimates for Henry's tomb in 1506 namely Robert Vertue, Robert Janyns and John Lebons with Janyns being the most likely candidate.
As to the monument itself, Henry stipulated that there be visible representations:

"I trust also to the singular mediations and prayers of all the holy company of heaven: that is to say, Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins, and especially to mine accustomed Avouries I call and cry."

In addition, the tomb was originally to be black and white marble with bronze statues and kneeling effigies. The space behind the altar originally intended for the re-interred bones of Henry VI, was used instead for the tomb of Henry and Elizabeth of York when Henry VIII disregarded his father's wishes. This never happened as Henry the son failed to carry out the instructions in the Will and he appears to have intended the centre of the chapel for his own tomb.
The fact that Henry took great pains as to how he wished his own funerary monument to be is revealing. The comparisons between himself and the arrangements for an anointed king such as Richard, and even Elizabeth Woodville, who had been Queen Consort to Edward IV, reveals someone lacking largess of spirit as should become a ruling monarch or even a member of the aristocracy. It reveals a little man, without class or nobility.
Elaine



--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:



--- In , "bandyoi" wrote:

I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....

Marie replies:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death.Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.



And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

Marie replies:
I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.

Nothing speaks well of Henry!! The dad or the son.


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, All -
> Speaking of Fat (and Brutal) Hal - there is a real contrast with the conscientiousness and moral rectitude shown by Our Richard, isn't there? Giving his father (and Edmund, I presume) and HVI the reburials they deserved. It indicates not only a conscientious but a self-effacing personality. All the more reason he should now, finally, be given a funeral befitting an anointed king.
>
> Also, I have bought for my kindle an ebook which supposedly exposes Fat Hal for what he was. It's called *Blood Will Tell.* Has anyone read it? I hope that the "blood" that will "tell" is not his relationship to Richard!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ellrosa1452
> Sent: 18 Dec 2012 23:18:01 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains/Treatment of Richard
>
> Marie Said:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming.
>
> Elaine's reply:
> The comparison with his own funeral arrangements speaks volumes as to both his character and meanness of spirit in that for himself he wanted a lavish monument and for his shrine to stand beside the tomb of Henry VI. He was hoping to bask in the reflected glory of Henry VI whom it was hoped would have achieved cannonisation by this time. The original intended site was to be a new chapel on the site of Henry III's Chapel of St Edward at Windsor Castle; however, Henry accepted the claim of the monks of Westminster that Henry VI had planned to be buried near to the shrine of Edward the Confessor. This led to the demolition of the original thirteenth-century chapel and the construction of the chapel now known as Henry VII's chapel. As the cannonisation process did not progress as expected and Henry VI's body remained at Windsor, Henry VII's tomb was placed where the VI's Henry was meant to be interred. The cost was almost £20,000; this does not take into account the continuing costs for decoration, which continued after Henry's death in 1509. Although the building accounts have not survived, which would have enabled identification of the builder, it is assumed that he was one of the king's master masons who had made estimates for Henry's tomb in 1506 namely Robert Vertue, Robert Janyns and John Lebons with Janyns being the most likely candidate.
> As to the monument itself, Henry stipulated that there be visible representations:
>
> "I trust also to the singular mediations and prayers of all the holy company of heaven: that is to say, Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins, and especially to mine accustomed Avouries I call and cry."
>
> In addition, the tomb was originally to be black and white marble with bronze statues and kneeling effigies. The space behind the altar originally intended for the re-interred bones of Henry VI, was used instead for the tomb of Henry and Elizabeth of York when Henry VIII disregarded his father's wishes. This never happened as Henry the son failed to carry out the instructions in the Will and he appears to have intended the centre of the chapel for his own tomb.
> The fact that Henry took great pains as to how he wished his own funerary monument to be is revealing. The comparisons between himself and the arrangements for an anointed king such as Richard, and even Elizabeth Woodville, who had been Queen Consort to Edward IV, reveals someone lacking largess of spirit as should become a ruling monarch or even a member of the aristocracy. It reveals a little man, without class or nobility.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" wrote:
>
> I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
>
> Marie replies:
> It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death.Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.
>
> And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......
>
> Marie replies:
> I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.
>
>
>
>

As I was reading Elaine's very telling description of Henry's grandiose plans for his tomb, I started wondering about Margaret Beaufort and her effects upon her son's psyche.  I was researching a paper and came across an article on Brutus and his mother's influence upon his character and ambitions.  Aside from being very entertaining, there were some pithy statements on mom's ambitions and influence 'in loco parentis.'  I remember reading that Henry was 'much attached' to his mother; was she, proud and ambitious? Did the circumstances of her family line cause her to push Henry? Was it a combination of nature and nurture?  Was Henry VII an anal-retentive momma's boy?
 
Africa, Thomas W. "The Mask of an Assassin: a Pyschohistorical Study of M. Junius Brutus." The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Vol. 8. No. 4. (Spring. 1978) pp. 599-626. The MIT Press. stable URL:  http://www/jstor.org/stable/203080.


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains/Treatment of Richard

 

Marie Said:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming.

Elaine's reply:
The comparison with his own funeral arrangements speaks volumes as to both his character and meanness of spirit in that for himself he wanted a lavish monument and for his shrine to stand beside the tomb of Henry VI. He was hoping to bask in the reflected glory of Henry VI whom it was hoped would have achieved cannonisation by this time. The original intended site was to be a new chapel on the site of Henry III's Chapel of St Edward at Windsor Castle; however, Henry accepted the claim of the monks of Westminster that Henry VI had planned to be buried near to the shrine of Edward the Confessor. This led to the demolition of the original thirteenth-century chapel and the construction of the chapel now known as Henry VII's chapel. As the cannonisation process did not progress as expected and Henry VI's body remained at Windsor, Henry VII's tomb was placed where the VI's Henry was meant to be interred. The cost was almost £20,000; this does not take into
account the continuing costs for decoration, which continued after Henry's death in 1509. Although the building accounts have not survived, which would have enabled identification of the builder, it is assumed that he was one of the king's master masons who had made estimates for Henry's tomb in 1506 namely Robert Vertue, Robert Janyns and John Lebons with Janyns being the most likely candidate.
As to the monument itself, Henry stipulated that there be visible representations:

"I trust also to the singular mediations and prayers of all the holy company of heaven: that is to say, Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins, and especially to mine accustomed Avouries I call and cry."

In addition, the tomb was originally to be black and white marble with bronze statues and kneeling effigies. The space behind the altar originally intended for the re-interred bones of Henry VI, was used instead for the tomb of Henry and Elizabeth of York when Henry VIII disregarded his father's wishes. This never happened as Henry the son failed to carry out the instructions in the Will and he appears to have intended the centre of the chapel for his own tomb.
The fact that Henry took great pains as to how he wished his own funerary monument to be is revealing. The comparisons between himself and the arrangements for an anointed king such as Richard, and even Elizabeth Woodville, who had been Queen Consort to Edward IV, reveals someone lacking largess of spirit as should become a ruling monarch or even a member of the aristocracy. It reveals a little man, without class or nobility.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:



--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "bandyoi" wrote:

I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....

Marie replies:
It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death.Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.



And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......

Marie replies:
I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.

I've not read it yet but I have to agree with you about Henry VIII. A truly awful person. Why anyone would have stayed at his court and "courted" death every single day, is beyond me! Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing speaks well of Henry!! The dad or the son.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi, All -
> > Speaking of Fat (and Brutal) Hal - there is a real contrast with the conscientiousness and moral rectitude shown by Our Richard, isn't there? Giving his father (and Edmund, I presume) and HVI the reburials they deserved. It indicates not only a conscientious but a self-effacing personality. All the more reason he should now, finally, be given a funeral befitting an anointed king.
> >
> > Also, I have bought for my kindle an ebook which supposedly exposes Fat Hal for what he was. It's called *Blood Will Tell.* Has anyone read it? I hope that the "blood" that will "tell" is not his relationship to Richard!
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: ellrosa1452
> > Sent: 18 Dec 2012 23:18:01 GMT
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: His Majesty's remains/Treatment of Richard
> >
> > Marie Said:
> > It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming.
> >
> > Elaine's reply:
> > The comparison with his own funeral arrangements speaks volumes as to both his character and meanness of spirit in that for himself he wanted a lavish monument and for his shrine to stand beside the tomb of Henry VI. He was hoping to bask in the reflected glory of Henry VI whom it was hoped would have achieved cannonisation by this time. The original intended site was to be a new chapel on the site of Henry III's Chapel of St Edward at Windsor Castle; however, Henry accepted the claim of the monks of Westminster that Henry VI had planned to be buried near to the shrine of Edward the Confessor. This led to the demolition of the original thirteenth-century chapel and the construction of the chapel now known as Henry VII's chapel. As the cannonisation process did not progress as expected and Henry VI's body remained at Windsor, Henry VII's tomb was placed where the VI's Henry was meant to be interred. The cost was almost £20,000; this does not take into account the continuing costs for decoration, which continued after Henry's death in 1509. Although the building accounts have not survived, which would have enabled identification of the builder, it is assumed that he was one of the king's master masons who had made estimates for Henry's tomb in 1506 namely Robert Vertue, Robert Janyns and John Lebons with Janyns being the most likely candidate.
> > As to the monument itself, Henry stipulated that there be visible representations:
> >
> > "I trust also to the singular mediations and prayers of all the holy company of heaven: that is to say, Angels, Archangels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins, and especially to mine accustomed Avouries I call and cry."
> >
> > In addition, the tomb was originally to be black and white marble with bronze statues and kneeling effigies. The space behind the altar originally intended for the re-interred bones of Henry VI, was used instead for the tomb of Henry and Elizabeth of York when Henry VIII disregarded his father's wishes. This never happened as Henry the son failed to carry out the instructions in the Will and he appears to have intended the centre of the chapel for his own tomb.
> > The fact that Henry took great pains as to how he wished his own funerary monument to be is revealing. The comparisons between himself and the arrangements for an anointed king such as Richard, and even Elizabeth Woodville, who had been Queen Consort to Edward IV, reveals someone lacking largess of spirit as should become a ruling monarch or even a member of the aristocracy. It reveals a little man, without class or nobility.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "bandyoi" wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why the gray friars did not provide a coffin for Richard. It would not be too much to ask....
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > It doesn't speak well of Henry, but ithe burial would have to have been organised quickly - it was still summer and the body had not been embalmed. Richard seems to have been buried immediately after the funeral ceremonies, ie three days after death.Actually, if you read the herald's account of Elizabeth Woodville's funeral, t hat is pretty shocking too. She had a coffin, but a cheap one without lead lining, and there seems to have been no attempt at embalming. The body was taken by river to Windsor by the monks of Bermondsey and landed on the watersteps of the castle at night. Her family started turning up after that. I do wonder whether Henry's intention hadn't been to have her quietly buried at Bermondsey rather than with Edward IV, but the monks had other ideas.
> >
> > And a painful question for me, why would Henry VII treat the body of a king(or even a beggar for that matter)with such disrespect. I understand why they would want to display his body but not why they had to despoil him like that. I cry every time I think of that.
> > On another note, does anyone else think R3 did not attend mass on the 22nd August(if it is true)because he knew he was going to do something suicidal after all? Since suicide being a mortal sin, maybe he could not make himself? I know. I know. My imagination is running amok. You have to forgive my artist's sensibilities......
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > I don't think we need take any notice of the story of ther chaplains not being ready to say mass. This has been shown to be a trope, also told of at least one other doomed leader of the late medieval period. It's supposed to be a sign of the withdrawal of God's favour, you see. I don't think Richard intended to commit suicide or he wouldn't have taken so many men with him, but I do think his judgement may have been affected by depression.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>