Where to reinter the King

Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
Sorry for the length of this post.
Loyaute nous lie.
Jan.

John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

--- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

From: janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...>
Subject: Where to reinter the King
To:
Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
















 









Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".

In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?

The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.

I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Loyaute nous lie.

Jan.

Oh on the contrary, this is wonderful news, and shows much more care and concern than we have seen heretofore. Thank you

On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan@...>" <janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan@...>> wrote:



Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
Sorry for the length of this post.
Loyaute nous lie.
Jan.

Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).

Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.

Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
>
> --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> From: janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...>
> Subject: Where to reinter the King
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
>
> In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
>
> The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
>
> I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
>
> Sorry for the length of this post.
>
> Loyaute nous lie.
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.

Sandra

There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. You're not out of order, Sandra; surely the Forum is here for people to express opinions. I wouldn't know half of what's going on if Forum posters didn't communicate what they knew & felt.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 18:35, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

I have been somewhat of a lurker up here but have been following the story and am looking for enlightenment. I am sure there experts on this forum who can educate me on this point.

I understand there was this initial contract that the university was responsible for internment of any bones from this dig and also was given the decision-making power about where, but is that actually a legal contract? Naively I would think that first and foremost, if bones were actually identified to be a specific person (as they have been) then any existing relatives would have the greater say, the greatest say, about burial. Are there not rules about this type of thing regarding Aboriginal remains, in the US, native american, etc? are there no laws about this type of thing in Britain?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Can I raise another point? Sorry if this is out of order but have just come in from being out all day.
 
Did the person who granted the re-burial licence really study and comprehend what they were doing? My guess is such licences are given fairly routinely by civil servants to archaeologists doing digs and likely to unearth human remains. Did this person really comprehend that they were granting a 'routine licence' to rebury a King. Was a superivisor even consulted? Or was it all in a day's work, with a bit of a laugh at such unlikely prospects thrown in?
 
I think one could seriously challenge the MOJ on this. H  


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 

Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).

Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.

Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
>
> --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> From: janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...>
> Subject: Where to reinter the King
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
>
> In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
>
> The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
>
> I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
>
> Sorry for the length of this post.
>
> Loyaute nous lie.
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very good point. I would think that the University of Leicester gets approvals for digs all the time, and yes, probably by someone in a large bureaucratic system. And not even the archaeologists actually thought they would "find Richard III". So yes, with only Phillipa's sense that he was there did they begin. Now they are trying to make decisions, which in hindsight, should have been more properly thought through. Had they, for instance, notified whomever they notify at Parliament and the Royal Offices, these decisions might have been made quietly and with the decorum we are now begging for....... My hindsight is fabulous. My foresight remains a hit or miss kind of business!!!!

On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:52 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Can I raise another point? Sorry if this is out of order but have just come in from being out all day.

Did the person who granted the re-burial licence really study and comprehend what they were doing? My guess is such licences are given fairly routinely by civil servants to archaeologists doing digs and likely to unearth human remains. Did this person really comprehend that they were granting a 'routine licence' to rebury a King. Was a superivisor even consulted? Or was it all in a day's work, with a bit of a laugh at such unlikely prospects thrown in?

I think one could seriously challenge the MOJ on this. H


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King




Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).

Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.

Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
>
> --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> From: janmulrenan@... <janmulrenan@...>
> Subject: Where to reinter the King
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ý
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
>
> In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
>
> The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
>
> I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
>
> Sorry for the length of this post.
>
> Loyaute nous lie.
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its ludicrous that the re-burial of a dead monarch should be left in the hands of a mere University...and the local council. It is much bigger than that and when Richard was found this should have moved the goal posts and gone to somewhere else more competent in making such massive decisions. Honestly...you couldnt make it up...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Very good point. I would think that the University of Leicester gets approvals for digs all the time, and yes, probably by someone in a large bureaucratic system. And not even the archaeologists actually thought they would "find Richard III". So yes, with only Phillipa's sense that he was there did they begin. Now they are trying to make decisions, which in hindsight, should have been more properly thought through. Had they, for instance, notified whomever they notify at Parliament and the Royal Offices, these decisions might have been made quietly and with the decorum we are now begging for....... My hindsight is fabulous. My foresight remains a hit or miss kind of business!!!!
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:52 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Can I raise another point? Sorry if this is out of order but have just come in from being out all day.
>
> Did the person who granted the re-burial licence really study and comprehend what they were doing? My guess is such licences are given fairly routinely by civil servants to archaeologists doing digs and likely to unearth human remains. Did this person really comprehend that they were granting a 'routine licence' to rebury a King. Was a superivisor even consulted? Or was it all in a day's work, with a bit of a laugh at such unlikely prospects thrown in?
>
> I think one could seriously challenge the MOJ on this. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]

Carol responds:

And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory – Holy Cross Priory – in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.

One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?

Carol

It's a location worth considering, but I still don't see a particular argument for him to be in Leicester. 
From the point of view of visitors, it's actually not that accessible - its near a major motorway (the M1), but for those who are committed to public transport Leicester, despite being in the middle of the country, is quite cut off. The big north-south and east-west rail lines go straight past without stopping, whereas they both go through York, which is equally accessible from the road.
Just sayin'....;-) 

--- On Sat, 16/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
To:
Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 20:51
















 









Jan Mulrenan wrote:

>

> There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]



Carol responds:



And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.



One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?



Carol

I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]

Carol responds:

And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.

One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?

Carol

The university was granted a licence to exhume up to six bodies. Under the Law they they could be contained in a museum, in the nearest church, or in an appropriate place (the latter option has only emerged since the debate last Tuesday). As long as the University makes one such choice the Ministry of Justice does not want to intervene, but has made clear it wants to see fair play. Because the licence was granted to the Uni, it is the Uni (not the nearest relatives) that has the power to say where they go, whoever they are, and the MOJ is reluctant to interfer. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, how often does a civil servant grant a routine licence for the interment of a King? I think it is challengeable on those grounds but who knows - we need legal advice. Hope this helps.  H



________________________________
From: cleo90808 <mary98136@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:50
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

I have been somewhat of a lurker up here but have been following the story and am looking for enlightenment. I am sure there experts on this forum who can educate me on this point.

I understand there was this initial contract that the university was responsible for internment of any bones from this dig and also was given the decision-making power about where, but is that actually a legal contract? Naively I would think that first and foremost, if bones were actually identified to be a specific person (as they have been) then any existing relatives would have the greater say, the greatest say, about burial. Are there not rules about this type of thing regarding Aboriginal remains, in the US, native american, etc? are there no laws about this type of thing in Britain?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> >
> > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
>
> One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.



________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> >
> > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
>
> One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I meant I had a low Anglican background! Perhaps somebody in authority will approach the Fathers & sound them out. If the Prior was willing to hold a requiem mass for the king on his own initiative he might be delighted to have the re-interment there, but there is likely to be an immense argument first.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:41, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> >
> > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry about the Anglican thing. I know what you mean now!  All this is so dreadfully sad. The last thing we should do is be fighting over the bones of a good man who died in an awful way 500 years' ago. But like you I fear the fight is far from over.  H 


________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

Sorry, I meant I had a low Anglican background! Perhaps somebody in authority will approach the Fathers & sound them out. If the Prior was willing to hold a requiem mass for the king on his own initiative he might be delighted to have the re-interment there, but there is likely to be an immense argument first.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:41, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> >
> > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, it is simply lovely. That would be a great spot. Is it "in the running"? Sorry, that sounds like a sports event.

On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:04 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King



Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]

Carol responds:

And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory ý Holy Cross Priory ý in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.

One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?

Carol

thanks. I get the stuff about the license but certainly you are right, the fact that this is now a king should make a difference. And even with such a license, I agree that some legal minds should weigh in on whether that license is really valid once specific individuals with living descendants/relatives are identified. I'll be watching to see what happens here.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The university was granted a licence to exhume up to six bodies. Under the Law they they could be contained in a museum, in the nearest church, or in an appropriate place (the latter option has only emerged since the debate last Tuesday). As long as the University makes one such choice the Ministry of Justice does not want to intervene, but has made clear it wants to see fair play. Because the licence was granted to the Uni, it is the Uni (not the nearest relatives) that has the power to say where they go, whoever they are, and the MOJ is reluctant to interfer. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, how often does a civil servant grant a routine licence for the interment of a King? I think it is challengeable on those grounds but who knows - we need legal advice. Hope this helps.  H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: cleo90808 <mary98136@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:50
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
>
> I have been somewhat of a lurker up here but have been following the story and am looking for enlightenment. I am sure there experts on this forum who can educate me on this point.
>
> I understand there was this initial contract that the university was responsible for internment of any bones from this dig and also was given the decision-making power about where, but is that actually a legal contract? Naively I would think that first and foremost, if bones were actually identified to be a specific person (as they have been) then any existing relatives would have the greater say, the greatest say, about burial. Are there not rules about this type of thing regarding Aboriginal remains, in the US, native american, etc? are there no laws about this type of thing in Britain?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
> >
> > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> > >
> > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > >
> > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > >
> > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > >
> > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

No need to apologise. I should have been more precise. Let's get our quills sharpened & plan what & whom to write to. It will help us if we feel sad, cross or powerless.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 22:15, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Sorry about the Anglican thing. I know what you mean now! All this is so dreadfully sad. The last thing we should do is be fighting over the bones of a good man who died in an awful way 500 years' ago. But like you I fear the fight is far from over. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> Sorry, I meant I had a low Anglican background! Perhaps somebody in authority will approach the Fathers & sound them out. If the Prior was willing to hold a requiem mass for the king on his own initiative he might be delighted to have the re-interment there, but there is likely to be an immense argument first.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:41, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> > >
> > > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Tydder was an ardent Catholic and reapplied de heretico comburendo. He was buried in an erstwhile Catholic site - that it isn't now is his own son's fault.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King



Sorry about the Anglican thing. I know what you mean now! All this is so dreadfully sad. The last thing we should do is be fighting over the bones of a good man who died in an awful way 500 years' ago. But like you I fear the fight is far from over. H


________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: ">
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King



Sorry, I meant I had a low Anglican background! Perhaps somebody in authority will approach the Fathers & sound them out. If the Prior was willing to hold a requiem mass for the king on his own initiative he might be delighted to have the re-interment there, but there is likely to be an immense argument first.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:41, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> >
> > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sharpening mine now. As I say the fight is far from over!



________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

No need to apologise. I should have been more precise. Let's get our quills sharpened & plan what & whom to write to. It will help us if we feel sad, cross or powerless.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 Mar 2013, at 22:15, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Sorry about the Anglican thing. I know what you mean now! All this is so dreadfully sad. The last thing we should do is be fighting over the bones of a good man who died in an awful way 500 years' ago. But like you I fear the fight is far from over. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>
> Sorry, I meant I had a low Anglican background! Perhaps somebody in authority will approach the Fathers & sound them out. If the Prior was willing to hold a requiem mass for the king on his own initiative he might be delighted to have the re-interment there, but there is likely to be an immense argument first.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:41, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory  Holy Cross Priory  in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> > >
> > > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was an excellent interview but how apalling that they appear to be elbowing John out. If it wasn't for John's research there would have been no dig.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Yes I thought that was odd Carol and I have never heard that before. However, as John is very thorough in his research he will probably have some evidence to back it up.
Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> >
> > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory – Holy Cross Priory – in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
>
> One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
>
> Carol
>

Huh. This really looks promising. The website is all about their music program, of which they are quite proud, and we know Richard was a big fan of music. They also support efforts to use Latin in all church rituals and support traditional chant--both of them things which would be quite familiar to the King.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's a possible compromise, if we're forced. And the main thing is if the Fathers are willing to welcome Richard, which I'm not sure the Cathedral truly is. I don't know how you have it as low Anglican - it's Catholic.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
>
> I did & it certainly has space & dignity,although I find it hard to relate to plaster figures of saints - low church Anglican background. Medieval wood carvings & Spanish crucifixes are more evocative. A minor quibble in the serious issues facing us though.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16 Mar 2013, at 21:03, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> >
> > Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory â€" Holy Cross Priory â€" in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
> >
> > One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Huh. This really looks promising. The website is all about their music
> program, of which they are quite proud, and we know Richard was a big fan
> of music. They also support efforts to use Latin in all church rituals and
> support traditional chant--both of them things which would be quite
> familiar to the King.

Although ironic, since he was a pioneer of the use of English translation.

That's quite true: he was willing to go outside the bounds of the familiar in the service of greater religious understanding. What I think this points out, though, is that any house of religion, as long as it's inhabited by faithful people, would be a suitable resting place for a king known to be pious.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> > Huh. This really looks promising. The website is all about their music
> > program, of which they are quite proud, and we know Richard was a big fan
> > of music. They also support efforts to use Latin in all church rituals and
> > support traditional chant--both of them things which would be quite
> > familiar to the King.
>
> Although ironic, since he was a pioneer of the use of English translation.
>

Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

Yes, indeed, the licence is a legal document - but does include permission to re-inter "elsewhere" other than Leicester Cathedral. However there is no suggestion that anywhere else was actually considered or consulted (the decision seems to have been made as early as 2010).

First and foremost, in the re-interment of "known individuals", the wishes of the familial descendants (collateral or direct) are given serious weight. This has not happened. The wishes of the Descendants group have been ignored, and this is not in keeping with national guidelines.

Yes, there is legal precedent as well in cases with Aboriginal Australians and New Zealanders claiming aboriginal remains, both in 1988 and in 2007.

Indeed, there are laws, but Leicester is riding roughshod over them. This is why there needs to be urgent letter-writing to the Ministry for Justice (Under-Secretary Jeremy Wright who spoke at the Debate on Tues) since national guidelines have not and were not followed in the processes deciding upon the location. The licence was granted to Leicester University by the MoJ and should be taken out of their hands by the MoJ.

--- In , "cleo90808" <mary98136@...> wrote:
>
> I have been somewhat of a lurker up here but have been following the story and am looking for enlightenment. I am sure there experts on this forum who can educate me on this point.
>
> I understand there was this initial contract that the university was responsible for internment of any bones from this dig and also was given the decision-making power about where, but is that actually a legal contract? Naively I would think that first and foremost, if bones were actually identified to be a specific person (as they have been) then any existing relatives would have the greater say, the greatest say, about burial. Are there not rules about this type of thing regarding Aboriginal remains, in the US, native american, etc? are there no laws about this type of thing in Britain?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
> >
> > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> > >
> > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > >
> > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > >
> > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > >
> > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> of his country.

But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.

I think this is a very valid point. It would most likely have been granted by an MoJ underling. And really, the prospects of finding a king of England were regarded as one-in-a-million by Richard Buckley, so there is no reason the MoJ would have thought it through when they granted the licence. A Judicial Review could address this but there is a statute of limitations on these, which has already passed its sell-by-date. You can apply for one in extraordinary circumstances, which this might warrant, but it would only question the terms under which the licence was applied for and granted - not the actual content of the licence. I would argue that a licence for "unknown persons" cannot be used to re-inter a known person, and a king of England at that.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Can I raise another point? Sorry if this is out of order but have just come in from being out all day.
>  
> Did the person who granted the re-burial licence really study and comprehend what they were doing? My guess is such licences are given fairly routinely by civil servants to archaeologists doing digs and likely to unearth human remains. Did this person really comprehend that they were granting a 'routine licence' to rebury a King. Was a superivisor even consulted? Or was it all in a day's work, with a bit of a laugh at such unlikely prospects thrown in?
>  
> I think one could seriously challenge the MOJ on this. H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>  
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

 I don't think anyone is saying that he should be interred in a Catholic church because he was a Catholic - just that if we are forced to let him stay in Leicester, the Catholic Church in the centre there has so far been more welcoming than the Cathedral. I agree a church he would have chosen or knew would be far more appropriate but we don't know yet what will be forced upon us. The most important thing, surely, is that whoever hosts him wants him there and is not embarrassed by what they believe to be his reputation.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

I'm sure it's a beautiful building but really, just like Leicester Cathedral (St Martin's Church as was) had no real connection to Richard, this place has none either. And Richard wasn't a Catholic as we understand the term now. A king should be buried in a place of some historical significance in the nation, and in a place possibly that they had some significant connection to. They should be buried with some element of the historical context in which they lived and died, and with particular reference to their life, not their place of death.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
>
> Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> >
> > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory â€" Holy Cross Priory â€" in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
>
> One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

As you will see, I said in another post, I doubt whoever gave the licence really gave much consideration that it potentially involved a king. They probably had a bit of a snigger about the fancilfulness of it. It should really have been brought to the attention of someone much higher up in the MOJ, or whoever oversees these things, before the licence was granted to the Uni. It would be nice to know how long it did take to rubber-stamp it. My guess is not long.  


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 19:04
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

Yes, indeed, the licence is a legal document - but does include permission to re-inter "elsewhere" other than Leicester Cathedral. However there is no suggestion that anywhere else was actually considered or consulted (the decision seems to have been made as early as 2010).

First and foremost, in the re-interment of "known individuals", the wishes of the familial descendants (collateral or direct) are given serious weight. This has not happened. The wishes of the Descendants group have been ignored, and this is not in keeping with national guidelines.

Yes, there is legal precedent as well in cases with Aboriginal Australians and New Zealanders claiming aboriginal remains, both in 1988 and in 2007.

Indeed, there are laws, but Leicester is riding roughshod over them. This is why there needs to be urgent letter-writing to the Ministry for Justice (Under-Secretary Jeremy Wright who spoke at the Debate on Tues) since national guidelines have not and were not followed in the processes deciding upon the location. The licence was granted to Leicester University by the MoJ and should be taken out of their hands by the MoJ.

--- In , "cleo90808" <mary98136@...> wrote:
>
> I have been somewhat of a lurker up here but have been following the story and am looking for enlightenment. I am sure there experts on this forum who can educate me on this point.
>
> I understand there was this initial contract that the university was responsible for internment of any bones from this dig and also was given the decision-making power about where, but is that actually a legal contract? Naively I would think that first and foremost, if bones were actually identified to be a specific person (as they have been) then any existing relatives would have the greater say, the greatest say, about burial. Are there not rules about this type of thing regarding Aboriginal remains, in the US, native american, etc? are there no laws about this type of thing in Britain?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
> >
> > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> > >
> > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > >
> > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > >
> > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > >
> > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I agree with everything you say; but we could find ourselves over a Leicester barrel. And if that's the case, then a church that welcomes Richard is preferable to one that has doubts about his honour. No it isn't my number one by any means, but if it has to be Leicester then rather there than the Cathedral, after their recent comments.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 19:14
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

I'm sure it's a beautiful building but really, just like Leicester Cathedral (St Martin's Church as was) had no real connection to Richard, this place has none either. And Richard wasn't a Catholic as we understand the term now. A king should be buried in a place of some historical significance in the nation, and in a place possibly that they had some significant connection to. They should be buried with some element of the historical context in which they lived and died, and with particular reference to their life, not their place of death.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hesitated to suggest the Priory of the Holy Cross (I'm doing a wedding there in July). The present building is much newer than the cathedral, 1882 I think, but it is rather splendid - and has connections with the Howard family and the Dominican and Augustinian Orders well known to Richard. Have a look at it's site on the web - I think you may like it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 20:51
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
>
> Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> >
> > There is no value in running over all the confessional differences that have troubled British history till very recent times but there is some value in considering alternative sites to Leicester Cathedral if it isn't big enough to handle expectations and "pilgrim" traffic. York Minster is a popular candidate, Sutton Cheney got a mention, Windsor and Westminster too, but nowhere is free of controversy. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And it's nice to know that there's a suitable alternative site near Leicester, "a huge Dominican Catholic Priory â¬" Holy Cross Priory â¬" in Leicester, [whose] Prior approached [J A-H] last year about holding a Requiem Mass at the priory for Richard at some stage." That, to me, sounds a lot more promising than Leicester Cathedral under its new dean, especially given the architectural brief. It's not so much that Holy Cross is Catholic (like Richard) as that it seems open to accepting him (without besmirching his honor) and would evidently have sufficient space for a suitable tomb. I think it's a suggestion worth considering, not that I have any say in the matter, but I hope that J A-H is allowed to present it to someone in authority.
>
> One more point about that article: Did anyone else notice J-AH's statement near the end that Henry VII had once slipped and referred to Perkin Warbeck as the Duke of York? Anyone know what that's all about?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ignore my other post - you've caught up. I think this is where we, the Society or whatever could do with a bit of legal advice. I certainly think we can make enough noise about the injustice though.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 19:08
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

I think this is a very valid point. It would most likely have been granted by an MoJ underling. And really, the prospects of finding a king of England were regarded as one-in-a-million by Richard Buckley, so there is no reason the MoJ would have thought it through when they granted the licence. A Judicial Review could address this but there is a statute of limitations on these, which has already passed its sell-by-date. You can apply for one in extraordinary circumstances, which this might warrant, but it would only question the terms under which the licence was applied for and granted - not the actual content of the licence. I would argue that a licence for "unknown persons" cannot be used to re-inter a known person, and a king of England at that.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Can I raise another point? Sorry if this is out of order but have just come in from being out all day.
>  
> Did the person who granted the re-burial licence really study and comprehend what they were doing? My guess is such licences are given fairly routinely by civil servants to archaeologists doing digs and likely to unearth human remains. Did this person really comprehend that they were granting a 'routine licence' to rebury a King. Was a superivisor even consulted? Or was it all in a day's work, with a bit of a laugh at such unlikely prospects thrown in?
>  
> I think one could seriously challenge the MOJ on this. H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2013, 18:29
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>  
>
> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>
> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>
> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> >
> > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> >
> > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> >
> > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> >
> > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> >
> > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> >
> > Sorry for the length of this post.
> >
> > Loyaute nous lie.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.

What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.

Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > of his country.
>
> But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
>

It is good that there are a number of places ready to welcome Richard - I imagine, should they be given an open possibility, that York Minster would as well. But nothing should be forced on anyone. And there is nothing in the licence to say he "has to be" re-interred in Leicestershire. It offers the cathedral, or "anywhere else" basically. An independent group, involving the Descendants and experts on Richard's life, as well as other concerned parties, should help resolve this and find the most appropriate and fitting place for his remains - a place that is connected to him and his life. Not to his death.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  I don't think anyone is saying that he should be interred in a Catholic church because he was a Catholic - just that if we are forced to let him stay in Leicester, the Catholic Church in the centre there has so far been more welcoming than the Cathedral. I agree a church he would have chosen or knew would be far more appropriate but we don't know yet what will be forced upon us. The most important thing, surely, is that whoever hosts him wants him there and is not embarrassed by what they believe to be his reputation.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:56
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
>
> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just playing Devil's Advocate here.....if Richard was not a Catholic, as we think of now, why did he need a Papal Dispensation to marry Anne? Also, if all those nunneries, friaries, and great churches were not Catholic, why, other than their land and riches, did Henry VIII tear them down?

On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.

What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.

Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > of his country.
>
> But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed
> before the CoE.

It broke away from the Church of Rome, which had previously supplanted the
Celtic Christian church.

Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Just playing Devil's Advocate here.....if Richard was not a Catholic, as we think of now, why did he need a Papal Dispensation to marry Anne? Also, if all those nunneries, friaries, and great churches were not Catholic, why, other than their land and riches, did Henry VIII tear them down?
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.
>
> What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.
>
> Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: colyngbourne
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > > of his country.
> >
> > But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> > intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> > priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Got, forgot about the Reformation....

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Just playing Devil's Advocate here.....if Richard was not a Catholic, as we think of now, why did he need a Papal Dispensation to marry Anne? Also, if all those nunneries, friaries, and great churches were not Catholic, why, other than their land and riches, did Henry VIII tear them down?
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.
>
> What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.
>
> Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: colyngbourne
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > > of his country.
> >
> > But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> > intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> > priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.

Carol responds:

He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.

I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)

Carol

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.

Carol responds:

I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
"Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."

Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.

Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.

Most of my afternoon &evening has gone to writing letters to the Acting Dean of the Cathedral, the Chancellor & Vice-Chancellor of Leicester Uni & the City Mayor. Now I just have to post them & see if I get any reply. I did tell the gentlemen that I didn't expect one. My son thinks I have lost it & I haven't told my husband.
But I feel happy for writing.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Mar 2013, at 00:12, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> It was an excellent interview but how apalling that they appear to be elbowing John out. If it wasn't for John's research there would have been no dig.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
> >
> > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> > >
> > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > >
> > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > >
> > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > >
> > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> > it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.
>
> It broke away from the Church of Rome, which had previously supplanted the Celtic Christian church.

Carol responds:

Exactly. But the Church of Rome, at least, considered itself Catholic (universal), which may be why it imposed its rules for calculating the dates of Christian holy days, the style of tonsure for monks, and (IIRC) celibacy for priests on the Celtic Church, forcing it to conform and thereby ending its existence as an independent entity.

If we don't want to call Richard a Roman Catholic because it's an anachronism, even though the term "Catholic Church" existed as evidenced in the two creeds I just quoted, both long predating the fifteenth century, we can say that he was a member of the Church of Rome. And that, to all intents and purposes, is the same thing as what was later called a Roman Catholic.

Carol

Good for you. I am still waiting to simmer down enough to not use terribly
intemperate language.

A J

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Most of my afternoon &evening has gone to writing letters to the Acting
> Dean of the Cathedral, the Chancellor & Vice-Chancellor of Leicester Uni &
> the City Mayor. Now I just have to post them & see if I get any reply. I
> did tell the gentlemen that I didn't expect one. My son thinks I have lost
> it & I haven't told my husband.
> But I feel happy for writing.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 Mar 2013, at 00:12, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > It was an excellent interview but how apalling that they appear to be
> elbowing John out. If it wasn't for John's research there would have been
> no dig.
>
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John
> Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of
> finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been
> treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable.
> His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as
> "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although
> he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester
> Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears
> Kerching!).
> > >
> > > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it
> would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that
> is for fools.
> > >
> > > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Janet Ashton
> <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in
> which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University,
> Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > >
> http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > > To:
>
> > > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have
> appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H
> had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known
> as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has
> plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in
> Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the
> license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not
> misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we
> may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the
> king) under the cathedral floor".
> > > >
> > > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley
> commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow
> Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor.
> They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable
> characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at
> Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What
> Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > > >
> > > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that
> Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia
> anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was
> unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > > >
> > > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the
> sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice,
> as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > > >
> > > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > > >
> > > > Jan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Jan...... Won't your son be shocked, if it is your letter which turns the tide? All is takes is that last little straw!

On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "Jan Mulrenan" <janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan@...>> wrote:



Most of my afternoon &evening has gone to writing letters to the Acting Dean of the Cathedral, the Chancellor & Vice-Chancellor of Leicester Uni & the City Mayor. Now I just have to post them & see if I get any reply. I did tell the gentlemen that I didn't expect one. My son thinks I have lost it & I haven't told my husband.
But I feel happy for writing.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Mar 2013, at 00:12, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>> wrote:

> It was an excellent interview but how apalling that they appear to be elbowing John out. If it wasn't for John's research there would have been no dig.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
> >
> > Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
> > > Subject: Where to reinter the King
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
> > >
> > > In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
> > >
> > > The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
> > >
> > > I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the length of this post.
> > >
> > > Loyaute nous lie.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

That's a kind thing to say. I also said I expected they would get plenty of communications about the re-interment & I really hope they do, not just from the R3 Soc but from all sorts of people. Our strength lies in numbers. If you write for Amnesty International or sign an online petition you expect to be one of hundreds or even thousands.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Mar 2013, at 02:20, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Thank you Jan...... Won't your son be shocked, if it is your letter which turns the tide? All is takes is that last little straw!
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "Jan Mulrenan" <janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Most of my afternoon &evening has gone to writing letters to the Acting Dean of the Cathedral, the Chancellor & Vice-Chancellor of Leicester Uni & the City Mayor. Now I just have to post them & see if I get any reply. I did tell the gentlemen that I didn't expect one. My son thinks I have lost it & I haven't told my husband.
> But I feel happy for writing.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 Mar 2013, at 00:12, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>> wrote:
>
>> It was an excellent interview but how apalling that they appear to be elbowing John out. If it wasn't for John's research there would have been no dig.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh wow that is a very enlightening interview...from someone..John Ashdown-Hill who with Phillips was deeply involved with the project of finding Richard from the earliest beginning. It sounds as if he has been treated very very shabbily by the University which is really unacceptable. His opinion of the Cathedral's behaviour which Dr A-H describes as "appalling" confirms what some forum members have been thinking, although he does think that someone has been pulling their strings...(Leicester Council no doubt who can hear cash registers ringing in their ears Kerching!).
>>>
>>> Bottom line its absolutely diabolical...Who would have thought it would have come to this...? Money is God to some people..and integrity that is for fools.
>>>
>>> Is it any wonder that Annette had misgivings.....Eileen
>>>
>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John Ashdown-Hill has also given an interview at lostincastles in which he talks very frankly about the issues with Leicester (University, Cathedral and City Council): -
>>>> http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html
>>>>
>>>> --- On Sat, 16/3/13, janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: janmulrenan@ <janmulrenan@>
>>>> Subject: Where to reinter the King
>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 17:45
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forum members may be interested to hear of 3 letters that have appeared in the pages of the Times newspaper this week. On 14th Dr J A-H had a letter printed in which he suggested that the Dominican Priory known as Holy Cross might be a suitable site for the re interment as it has plenty of room for those wishing to visit and is a Catholic site in Leicester, in harmony with the king's own faith and with the terms of the license to exhumation. That last part is in my words and I hope I have not misrepresented any fact. Dr J A-H gives the reasons for his interest and we may guess his personal feeling from the line "may prefer to shovel him (the king) under the cathedral floor".
>>>>
>>>> In the Times today were 2 letters, one from Dr & Mrs M F Seeley commenting that Henry VIII was the most dishonourable king to follow Richard III and he had an enormous tomb in St.George's Chapel, Windsor. They have picked up on the comment about honourable and dishonourable characteristics demonstrated by Richard III according to "officials " at Leicester Cathedral which have so angered some Forum members. What Christian soul has not demonstrated these in earthly life?
>>>>
>>>> The second letter is from Edward Nugee QC. He makes the point that Anne Mowbray was reburied in Westminster Abbey as a member of ecclesia anglicana, "the continuity of which with the Church of England was unbroken". So the king should be reburied in Westminster Abbey too.
>>>>
>>>> I feel I should get writing to a couple of people now. Also the sooner that independent committee gets set up by the Ministry of Justice, as proposed in the adjournment debate,the better.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the length of this post.
>>>>
>>>> Loyaute nous lie.
>>>>
>>>> Jan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

We will have to disagree on this :)
Yes, the church in Western Christendom was run from Rome, and yes, it was "catholic" with a small 'c'. But Richard would not have termed himself a "Roman Catholic".
And I disagree in the point of language about the C of E. Using the phrase "it broke away" may have some useful practical interpretation, but this also implies that the current state faith is not "following the proper line", ie. that the true line of descent of faith is Roman Catholicism. The CoE is not a "break-away" church - it continues in an unbroken line of descent from the pre-Reformation church from which it developed. Evolutionarily-speaking, it is part of the same thing, not an offshoot.

I think it is a very interesting point of debate though, but of secondary importance to the real issue which is "where is a nationally significant and appropriate location, fitting to Richard's status and to his own connections and life?" If that can be determined, then the method and circumstances of the re-interment can be looked at more closely. All of the pre-Reformation cathedrals would have been familiar to Richard if he visited them, and York Minster more than most.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
>
> I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
>
> Carol
>

"Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>
> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>
> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>

  As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.

  On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
>Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> 
>colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
>
>I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

   As a follower of 'Charles Darwin' [A 'Lapsed Anglican'] it makes little difference which 'Rite' is followed. As a wealthy person Richard would have normally have expected to have had a burial in a special 'Chantry Chapel' & a priest would have been employed in perpetuity to pray for his soul.

  However I would suggest that we live in a 'Ecumenical Age' & that an invitation be made to have a 'Roman Catholic' input to the service.  

   Although Henry VII put Richard's body on display in Leicester after Bosworth there appear to be NO evidence that he took any part in inflicting the post mortem injuries to the body, indeed he paid for a memorial @ Grey Friars. Perhaps an 'Acknowledgement' of Richard's status as an 'Anointed King'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 18:56
>Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> 
>Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
>--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> Am I being a little dense here? Why is it thought Richard should lie in a strictly Catholic church? No one suggests that all the Catholic kings at Westminster Abbey etc. should be reinterred in that way. So why him? Surely he should lie in a Christian church he would remember in life? Would that not be more appropriate? Somewhere he had maybe prayed in? This is just my feeling on it, and if I am out of order I apologise. I just do not see that this is sensible. Catholic, Anglican, whatever, it is all Christian, and that is surely what really matters in the end.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed......it is confusing for those of us looking from another perspective. To me, at least, I didn't see the Catholics in England as being that different. This something else to study. Let us help find the appropriate place to bury Richard III. The clock is ticking toward the anticipated days in 2014.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:46 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



We will have to disagree on this :)
Yes, the church in Western Christendom was run from Rome, and yes, it was "catholic" with a small 'c'. But Richard would not have termed himself a "Roman Catholic".
And I disagree in the point of language about the C of E. Using the phrase "it broke away" may have some useful practical interpretation, but this also implies that the current state faith is not "following the proper line", ie. that the true line of descent of faith is Roman Catholicism. The CoE is not a "break-away" church - it continues in an unbroken line of descent from the pre-Reformation church from which it developed. Evolutionarily-speaking, it is part of the same thing, not an offshoot.

I think it is a very interesting point of debate though, but of secondary importance to the real issue which is "where is a nationally significant and appropriate location, fitting to Richard's status and to his own connections and life?" If that can be determined, then the method and circumstances of the re-interment can be looked at more closely. All of the pre-Reformation cathedrals would have been familiar to Richard if he visited them, and York Minster more than most.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
>
> I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
>
> Carol
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Although Henry VII put Richard's body on display in Leicester after
> Bosworth there appear to be NO evidence that he took any part in
> inflicting the post mortem injuries to the body,

Agreed. He wasn't a soldier himself, so I think he just hired his army the
way you hire a plumber: they weren't really under his control and he was
just grateful if they were pointing away from him. He didn't have the
authority or experience to prevent then from running wild and desecrating
his opponent's body, but there's no reason to think he approved.

[Although I am dubious about the claimed "humiliation injury". When you're
dressed in plate mail the only bits which aren't covered in steel are the
palms of your hands, the backs of your legs and your buttocks, so this may
just be somebody striking at a vulnerable spot on
scary-armour-plated-battleaxe-wielding-guy. A friend of a friend who does
historical re-enactment - referred to as "the mad Swede" - got stabbed in
the backside during a swordfight once for this reason, just because it was
"a target of opportunity".]

> indeed he paid for a memorial @ Grey Friars. Perhaps an 'Acknowledgement'
> of Richard's status as an 'Anointed King'.

It was, yes - it called him a true king who was being commemmorated with the
honour due to a king. There was an element of the photo-opportunity - it
was done at a time when Henry needed to emphasise that his brothers-in-law
had been legally excluded from the succession, and it includes a puff for
Henry's piety and military success - but it was still a kindly act,
reasonably expensive especially considering the source, and ended by
exhorting the reader to pray for Richard.

Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



"Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> "Et unam, sanctam, cathýlicam et apostýlicam Ecclýsiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>
> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>
> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>

Martin Luther was a German monk, priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of a reform movement in sixteenth century Christianity, subsequently known as the Protestant Reformation. And he was born two years before the death of Richard at Bosowrth.

> Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
>
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
>> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>>
>> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>>
>> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes Luther was undoubtedly the prime architect of Protestantism (said she who once had to write essays on him). The C of E was formed because of Henry's selfish interest to marry Anne Boleyn, not some religious ideology; though some of his time did embrace the new religion of the Continent. I don't think anyone could ever call Henry a great reformer; it just suited him to shake off the authority of the Pope and make a bit of money on the side by raiding the monasteries. I think even David Starkey would have a job to argue with that.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 11:10
Subject: Re: Reformation

 

Martin Luther was a German monk, priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of a reform movement in sixteenth century Christianity, subsequently known as the Protestant Reformation. And he was born two years before the death of Richard at Bosowrth.

> Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
>
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
>> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>>
>> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>>
>> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Elizabeth Woodville, apparently suddenly, removed herself to a convent, H7 having taken back all her lands which he then gave to E of Y.  From that time on, it seems she had little contact with the queen, although her other daughters visited her.

Did she choose to go - was it part of a long-term plan for graceful retirement from Court - or was she pushed?

There seems to be different opinions amongst historians.  What do members think?

Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



"Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>
> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>
> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

It is indeed Arthur - transubstantiation is the key difference. Richard would have believed in that, no doubt. The other thing, as well obviously as acknowledgement of Rome, is the intercession of the saints and the Virgin. Protestants believe they speak directly to God, not through another medium. One can see why that was thought heretical at the time. 



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 8:34
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

  As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.

  On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
>Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> 
>colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
>
>I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> It is indeed Arthur - transubstantiation is the key difference. Richard
> would have believed in that, no doubt. The other thing, as well obviously
> as acknowledgement of Rome, is the intercession of the saints and the
> Virgin.

And the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, i.e. (if I undrstand this
correctly) that she went straight to heaven without dying first. There was
a TV play about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, aired in the 1980s or 90s,
which memorably ended with a speech which went something like this:

"Yeh see, [name I've forgotten], I no longer believe in the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don't care whether she walked or flew - in fact
I've a suspicion she jumped."

Probably, but I've not bumped into that one.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

> It is indeed Arthur - transubstantiation is the key difference. Richard
> would have believed in that, no doubt. The other thing, as well obviously
> as acknowledgement of Rome, is the intercession of the saints and the
> Virgin.

And the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, i.e. (if I undrstand this
correctly) that she went straight to heaven without dying first. There was
a TV play about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, aired in the 1980s or 90s,
which memorably ended with a speech which went something like this:

"Yeh see, [name I've forgotten], I no longer believe in the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don't care whether she walked or flew - in fact
I've a suspicion she jumped."

Hi Arthur,
    Richard held Skipton castle for about ten years, from 1475 (or 4?) until his death. Before that it belonged to William Stanley, who received it from the heirs of John Clifford, the man who allegedly killed Edmund of Rutland at Wakefield.
 
Although Richard is thought to have hugely extended the parish church in Skipton, and one local pub has a sign up saying that the steps outside were his mounting block and the pub itself his stable, I am not sure there is a lot of docmentary evidence about his visits there. He might have visited a lot; he might have visited rarely (I can't imagine that he never went there at all, though.) However, his connection to it seems much less ingrained and personal than his relationsip with Middleham or Sherrif Hutton, so I guess that's why no-one has suggested it.....
 
Best
 
Janet

--- On Mon, 18/3/13, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:


From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
To: "" <>
Date: Monday, 18 March, 2013, 8:34



 



  As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.

  On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
>Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
> 
>colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
>
>I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe so. I think there is much in Leicester being tossed into the media which is unhelpful and somewhat inflammatory, considering that opinions on the whole thing are still running very high.

Regardless of much "honour" is attached to the suggested event, I don't think it actually helps for the king's remains to do an "honourable and dignified" 'repeat journey' along the route of the ignominious humiliation he suffered after his death. This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey on his *death*, not on his life as Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North, nor on his time as King of England. All it does is re-emphasise his wretched death and treatment in that place: it doesn't "heal" it or erase it, it precisely evokes it, and in focusing on it, I believe it is entirely the wrong theological and pastoral route to take. Or let's have regular funeral processions from the site of people's deaths or killings to their interments as close as possible to that location, shall we?

The focus being in and on Leicester, is all about his death, not his life and achievements and connections. Along with many other people who feel disturbed at this idea, I cannot celebrate this man's life which took place elsewhere in the country by this kind of "death-journey" focus.

Also, as with everything that has gone on, all decisions are being made locally in the matter of something which should be a nationally-decided thing.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
> Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
>
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> > "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
> >
> > Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
> >
> > Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

Carol responds:

Call it Roman Christianity, then. The name is less important than the belief system, which was that of modern Catholics in most respects and very different from that of other Christians who do do pray to saints, confess their sins, acknowledge the authority of the pope, and many other unique aspects of what is now Roman Catholicism. As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Just because Richard would not have called himself a Roman Catholic doesn't mean that he wasn't one. He wouldn't have called himself a Papist, either, but that's what a letter century would have called him. Look at Richard's niece, Margaret Pole, who held the same beliefs as Richard and dared to be a Catholic in Protestant England. What's the difference between an eggplant and an aubergine? Nothing but a name. Just because we Americans don't call them aubergines doesn't mean that aubergines don't exist here.

Richard's religion was what is now called Roman Catholicism as distinct from Anglicanism, Protestantism in all its varieties, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, and the Coptic church regardless of whether those branches existed than. And I didn't say that Anglicanism "broke away" from Roman Catholicism. I said that it "branched off." I'm afraid that the Pope would call it heresy, but, of course, I don't.

Agree to disagree since it's all a matter of terminology, not sustance. I'm sure you don't disagree that Richard acknowledged the authority of the Pope or prayed to saints.

Carol

Arthur wrote;

>   However I would suggest that we live in a 'Ecumenical Age' & that an invitation be made to have a 'Roman Catholic' input to the service.  
Carol responds:

Theoretically, that part of the argument was settled long ago, and, yes, they decided in favor of ecumenism with elements of Roman Catholicism, but, admittedly, that was when the choices of Leicester Cathedral and the R III Society's tomb were also, as we thought, settled. They also decided that it should be a memorial service and not a funeral service because it was unthinkable, according to Canon Chancellor David Monteith, that he was buried without a funeral service. But apparently, there's yet another group of protestors who think that anything but a Requiem Mass would be inappropriate for a Catholic king. This is what happens, I guess, when people make what they think are simple decisions without consulting all interested parties.

Do we really have to endure a year and more of bickering, waiting, hoping, and being disappointed? As the MP whose name I've forgotten said, "Poor Richard. As controversial in death as in life."

Carol

I think "backtracking" might be the phrase to use



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 
Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

"Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>
> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>
> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well perhaps they think that last time he took that route it was not in an appropriate manner and this is trying to make up for that by giving him an appropriate funeral procession? Not that Leicester has anything to make up for as far as I am concerned.  None of us get to choose where we die (unless we buy a one way ticket to Switzerland) We can hardly blame the people of Leicester - or anyone who lives near Bosworth - or even those descended from Tudor himself - for what happened to Richard after the battle.  
 


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 
Maybe so. I think there is much in Leicester being tossed into the media which is unhelpful and somewhat inflammatory, considering that opinions on the whole thing are still running very high.

Regardless of much "honour" is attached to the suggested event, I don't think it actually helps for the king's remains to do an "honourable and dignified" 'repeat journey' along the route of the ignominious humiliation he suffered after his death. This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey on his *death*, not on his life as Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North, nor on his time as King of England. All it does is re-emphasise his wretched death and treatment in that place: it doesn't "heal" it or erase it, it precisely evokes it, and in focusing on it, I believe it is entirely the wrong theological and pastoral route to take. Or let's have regular funeral processions from the site of people's deaths or killings to their interments as close as possible to that location, shall we?

The focus being in and on Leicester, is all about his death, not his life and achievements and connections. Along with many other people who feel disturbed at this idea, I cannot celebrate this man's life which took place elsewhere in the country by this kind of "death-journey" focus.

Also, as with everything that has gone on, all decisions are being made locally in the matter of something which should be a nationally-decided thing.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
> Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
>
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> > "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
> >
> > Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
> >
> > Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Wow&..so already the speeches, letters and email have started to make an impact! YES


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King



I think "backtracking" might be the phrase to use

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.

On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com%3cmailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>> wrote:

"Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com%3cmailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com%3cmailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
>
> Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
>
> Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Well perhaps they think that last time he took that route it was not in an
> appropriate manner and this is trying to make up for that by giving him an
> appropriate funeral procession?

I think it's a nice idea myself, if maybe possibly a teensy weensy bit
creepy (but then the whole situation's a bit creepy), and it's certainly
very well-intentioned.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] [Although I am dubious about the claimed "humiliation injury". When you're dressed in plate mail the only bits which aren't covered in steel are the palms of your hands, the backs of your legs and your buttocks, so this may just be somebody striking at a vulnerable spot on scary-armour-plated-battleaxe-wielding-guy. A friend of a friend who does historical re-enactment - referred to as "the mad Swede" - got stabbed in the backside during a swordfight once for this reason, just because it was "a target of opportunity".]
[snip]

Carol responds:

Interesting! That sounds much more plausible than a soldier stabbing him in the buttocks while he's slung over a horse (good way to get kicked in the teeth) or some crazed Henry-loving townsperson running up to the corpse of a fallen king--his own anointed king of the previous day--to humiliate him. I think that the townspeople would have been shocked and stunned at what had befallen and more likely stared in silent disbelief at such shabby treatment. That anyone other than Henry had Richard slung over a horse led by his own pursuivant Blancsanglier seems to me highly unlikely. Look at the charges he made against the "tyrant" and "usurper" in his bill of attainder. At this point, it was in his interest to humiliate and defame Richard, just as, later, it was in his interest to play the benevolent, pious monarch and build his successor a tomb.

I'm not saying that Henry authorized any humiliation injuries (you're probably right that he simply couldn't control his troops, who had been brainwashed into seeing Richard as a tyrannical usurper and murderer rather than the rightful king of England), but it was certainly his decision to display Richard naked (and perhaps bound) to the townspeople, first on a horse and then in a (Lancastrian) church, just as it must have been the decision of the friars to bury him in the choir of their abbey, however hastily dug the hole they put him in. And they would have made sure that he had last rites. (I think Canon Monteith may be mistaken that he had a full funeral service.)

Carol

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control
> over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey
> on his *death*,

Yes. But his was a special death with ceremonial weight, because he was the
last English king to die, like Harold Godwinson, fighting on English soil,
and the one thing even his detractors all agree on is that he fought and
died with spectacular bravery, and he chose to stand and die crowned. It's
not like he went to Hartlepool for the weekend and got run over by a bus.
Given that he never got the time to be the truly innovative king we all
think he could have been, dying in the way that he did, fighting the
invader, is one of the most historically significant things he did - as it
is for Harold.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Interesting! That sounds much more plausible than a soldier stabbing him
> in the buttocks while he's slung over a horse (good way to get kicked in
> the teeth)

Yes - he may well have been carved up by the rough soldiery but if so it
would have happened *before* he was slung over the horse. Also the
description of him not having even any cloth to cover his genitals, and the
fact that the whole point of carrying him into the town like that was to
demonstrate that it was really him and he was really dead, suggests that he
was probably carried face-up.

A few years ago there was an archaeological dig, and TV programme to go with
it, about the excavation of the skeleton of a knight (Lancastrian I think)
from one of the early WotR battles. He had lots of little cuts around his
eyes and they spent two thirds of the programme reconstructing this as a
scene of brutal post-battle torture, before realising that somebody had got
him down, sat on his chest and stabbed him through his visor.

> or some crazed Henry-loving townsperson running up to the corpse of a
> fallen king--his own anointed king of the previous day--to humiliate him.
> I think that the townspeople would have been shocked and stunned at what
> had befallen and more likely stared in silent disbelief at such shabby
> treatment.

Or even started a brawl about it - certainly there's no reason to think they
would have approved.

> That anyone other than Henry had Richard slung over a horse led by his own
> pursuivant Blancsanglier seems to me highly unlikely.

It certainly sounds like it would be either Henry or one of his officers -
it doesn't sound like a detail his men would come up with on their own. But
being slung over a horse was not itself necessarily intended as an insult -
if they didn't have their baggage train actually at the battlefieled
(anybody?) it would be the only form of transport available.

> Look at the charges he made against the "tyrant" and "usurper" in his bill
> of attainder. At this point, it was in his interest to humiliate and
> defame Richard, just as, later, it was in his interest to play the
> benevolent, pious monarch and build his successor a tomb.

Maybe. But also, you referred to a story that Henry had spent a lot of time
searching the Tower, trying to find what had ahppened to the boys. Where
does that come from? If it's true it occurs to me that Henry might actually
have come to Bosworth really believing that Richard was a usurper who had
murdered his nephews, and then came to realise that it probably wasn't true.

> I'm not saying that Henry authorized any humiliation injuries (you're
> probably right that he simply couldn't control his troops, who had been
> brainwashed into seeing Richard as a tyrannical usurper and murderer
> rather than the rightful king of England),

'xactly.

> but it was certainly his decision to display Richard naked (and perhaps
> bound) to the townspeople, first on a horse and then in a (Lancastrian)
> church, just as it must have been the decision of the friars to bury him
> in the choir of their abbey, however hastily dug the hole they put him in.
> And they would have made sure that he had last rites. (I think Canon
> Monteith may be mistaken that he had a full funeral service.)

It *may* have been Henry's decision to bury him at Greyfriars, though the
hasty nature of the burial suggests that if so the friars were afraid he
might change his mind.

High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
> I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.
>
>   On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
> >Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > 
> >colyngbourne wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
> >
> >I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> Elizabeth Woodville, apparently suddenly, removed herself to a convent, H7 having taken back all her lands which he then gave to E of Y.  From that time on, it seems she had little contact with the queen, although her other daughters visited her.
>
> Did she choose to go - was it part of a long-term plan for graceful retirement from Court - or was she pushed?
>
> There seems to be different opinions amongst historians. What do members think?

Carol responds:

I don't want to go into detail (I've done so in other posts on this topic), but I think that the only logical explanation is that she and her son Dorset, arrested at the same time, were somehow involved in the Lambert Simnel rebellion, which could only mean that they knew or believed that one or both of EW's sons were still alive, probably in the keeping of Margaret of York. Stillington was also arrested (after having been released) and died in prison. Also, if EW had entered the convent voluntarily she probably would not have relinquished her property (giving it to her daughter meant giving it to Henry as E of York's husband) and Henry would have had no need to formulate the feeble excuse that EW had been friendly to Richard all those years before.

Carol

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Carol responds:

Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned that Richard's remains be treated with dignity and honor. Richard Buckley's statement about the fragility of the remains would seem to rule out a progress to York, but a short procession from the battlefield to the cathedral (or other appropriate location) seems like an excellent idea--much better than, say, putting the bones on display. And there would be time for mourners to pay their respects before the reburial. I'm happy to see the Duke of Gloucester making a firm commitment to be involved in the ceremony, whatever its form.

Carol

Which shows how we've actually grown much closer together. Luther wouldn't buy it. 



________________________________
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:26
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
> I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.
>
>   On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
> >Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > 
> >colyngbourne wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
> >
> >I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned that Richard's remains be treated with dignity and honor.
>


More than a bit annoying that this needs to be pointed out to them, though, instead of them treating him with dignity and honour of their volition.

No, I have already agreed that in some elements of practice and in Richard's understanding of his faith, there are some similarities with modern RC practices. What this doesn't do is mean that the RC church can "claim" him for exclusive RC re-interment.

The Society in replies to letters on the entire matter is stating this -
whilst understanding "those people who were calling for Richard to be buried in a Catholic Church, history showed that the Church of England was the inheritor of the faith of this country, and as such, it was eminently appropriate for Richard to be buried in [an Anglican]cathedral." [The cathedral mentioned in the letter is Leicester, since that is the one selected by the Society in their dealings, and thence mentioned in the licence - but the principal is the same whichever Anglican place of worship ends up re-interring Richard's remains.]

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Call it Roman Christianity, then. The name is less important than the belief system, which was that of modern Catholics in most respects and very different from that of other Christians who do do pray to saints, confess their sins, acknowledge the authority of the pope, and many other unique aspects of what is now Roman Catholicism. As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Just because Richard would not have called himself a Roman Catholic doesn't mean that he wasn't one. He wouldn't have called himself a Papist, either, but that's what a letter century would have called him. Look at Richard's niece, Margaret Pole, who held the same beliefs as Richard and dared to be a Catholic in Protestant England. What's the difference between an eggplant and an aubergine? Nothing but a name. Just because we Americans don't call them aubergines doesn't mean that aubergines don't exist here.
>
> Richard's religion was what is now called Roman Catholicism as distinct from Anglicanism, Protestantism in all its varieties, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, and the Coptic church regardless of whether those branches existed than. And I didn't say that Anglicanism "broke away" from Roman Catholicism. I said that it "branched off." I'm afraid that the Pope would call it heresy, but, of course, I don't.
>
> Agree to disagree since it's all a matter of terminology, not sustance. I'm sure you don't disagree that Richard acknowledged the authority of the Pope or prayed to saints.
>
> Carol
>

No, you're right. No blame should be attached to the people of Leicester.

None of us choose where we get to die - but, crucially, our families or those who know us well, usually make sure that we are interred in a place that is *meaningful to us*. We are not buried where our heart attack chanced to happen. Why is Richard not being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life? Why is the location of his death the only place that has been discussed by the civic and private groups who have, without wider national remit, decided on the location?

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well perhaps they think that last time he took that route it was not in an appropriate manner and this is trying to make up for that by giving him an appropriate funeral procession? Not that Leicester has anything to make up for as far as I am concerned.  None of us get to choose where we die (unless we buy a one way ticket to Switzerland) We can hardly blame the people of Leicester - or anyone who lives near Bosworth - or even those descended from Tudor himself - for what happened to Richard after the battle.  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 13:59
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>  
> Maybe so. I think there is much in Leicester being tossed into the media which is unhelpful and somewhat inflammatory, considering that opinions on the whole thing are still running very high.
>
> Regardless of much "honour" is attached to the suggested event, I don't think it actually helps for the king's remains to do an "honourable and dignified" 'repeat journey' along the route of the ignominious humiliation he suffered after his death. This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey on his *death*, not on his life as Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North, nor on his time as King of England. All it does is re-emphasise his wretched death and treatment in that place: it doesn't "heal" it or erase it, it precisely evokes it, and in focusing on it, I believe it is entirely the wrong theological and pastoral route to take. Or let's have regular funeral processions from the site of people's deaths or killings to their interments as close as possible to that location, shall we?
>
> The focus being in and on Leicester, is all about his death, not his life and achievements and connections. Along with many other people who feel disturbed at this idea, I cannot celebrate this man's life which took place elsewhere in the country by this kind of "death-journey" focus.
>
> Also, as with everything that has gone on, all decisions are being made locally in the matter of something which should be a nationally-decided thing.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> > Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> > > "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
> > >
> > > Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
> > >
> > > Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:26
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

> High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too.


You must be talking stratospherically high.  A "real presence", yes, but transubstantiation in the Catholic sense isn't a belief that I've encountered...

Jonathan


________________________________
From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:26
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 
High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>   As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
> I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.
>
>   On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
> >Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > 
> >colyngbourne wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
> >
> >I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned...

Well, they can't fail to be aware that they're at the centre of something nationally significant and, perhaps, bigger than they first thought.  Nor that their initial steps haven't been as sure-footed as they would have liked...  But I do sympathise.  There's no precedent, and people with no particular grounding in the history have had this thrust upon them and are, to all intents and purposes, having to make up the rules as they go along.

Jonathan


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Carol responds:

Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned that Richard's remains be treated with dignity and honor. Richard Buckley's statement about the fragility of the remains would seem to rule out a progress to York, but a short procession from the battlefield to the cathedral (or other appropriate location) seems like an excellent idea--much better than, say, putting the bones on display. And there would be time for mourners to pay their respects before the reburial. I'm happy to see the Duke of Gloucester making a firm commitment to be involved in the ceremony, whatever its form.

Carol

It's just a pity they didn't seek help about PR. The first thing you learn when besieged by the Press (and I've been there as part of an institution that was) is who you nominate to say what, and to make sure that what you say doesn't cause further controversy by having everything vetted. I agree, innocents have probably made what they thought were simple statements, but someone should have been on hand to point out they were lighting a potential fire.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 16:35
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

> Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned...

Well, they can't fail to be aware that they're at the centre of something nationally significant and, perhaps, bigger than they first thought.  Nor that their initial steps haven't been as sure-footed as they would have liked...  But I do sympathise.  There's no precedent, and people with no particular grounding in the history have had this thrust upon them and are, to all intents and purposes, having to make up the rules as they go along.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Carol responds:

Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned that Richard's remains be treated with dignity and honor. Richard Buckley's statement about the fragility of the remains would seem to rule out a progress to York, but a short procession from the battlefield to the cathedral (or other appropriate location) seems like an excellent idea--much better than, say, putting the bones on display. And there would be time for mourners to pay their respects before the reburial. I'm happy to see the Duke of Gloucester making a firm commitment to be involved in the ceremony, whatever its form.

Carol

Yes, well...  "Effective PR" and "the Church of England" are two concepts that are rarely linked!  ;-)

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 16:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 
It's just a pity they didn't seek help about PR. The first thing you learn when besieged by the Press (and I've been there as part of an institution that was) is who you nominate to say what, and to make sure that what you say doesn't cause further controversy by having everything vetted. I agree, innocents have probably made what they thought were simple statements, but someone should have been on hand to point out they were lighting a potential fire.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 16:35
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

> Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned...

Well, they can't fail to be aware that they're at the centre of something nationally significant and, perhaps, bigger than they first thought.  Nor that their initial steps haven't been as sure-footed as they would have liked...  But I do sympathise.  There's no precedent, and people with no particular grounding in the history have had this thrust upon them and are, to all intents and purposes, having to make up the rules as they go along.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:46
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC

Carol responds:

Charm offensive or not, it's a hopeful sign that even the cathedral officials now understand how many people are concerned that Richard's remains be treated with dignity and honor. Richard Buckley's statement about the fragility of the remains would seem to rule out a progress to York, but a short procession from the battlefield to the cathedral (or other appropriate location) seems like an excellent idea--much better than, say, putting the bones on display. And there would be time for mourners to pay their respects before the reburial. I'm happy to see the Duke of Gloucester making a firm commitment to be involved in the ceremony, whatever its form.

Carol

Ah yes, the difference between Transubstantiation and Real Presence. Deep theological waters!
If you are ever at the Anglican Shrine at Walsingham on 15th August you will find Anglicans who believe a lot of things that maybe would have Cranmer turning in his grave. And some Protestants waving banners to disrupt the processions.
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:26
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
> > High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too.
>
>
> You must be talking stratospherically high.  A "real presence", yes, but transubstantiation in the Catholic sense isn't a belief that I've encountered...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 15:26
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
>
>  
> High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'
>
> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >
> >   As a 'Northerner' who has travelled extensively in the area of Yorkshire held in Richard's sway, 
> > I am surprised VERY little ever seems to be mentioned of the 'Lordship of Craven' centred on Skipton, Which incidentally has an EXCEPTIONALLY large parish church.
> >
> >   On the question of religion it seems to me the principle difference between Roman Catholicism & Anglicanism is the belief in 'Transubstantiation.' [And of Course to acknowledge Rome or Not.]
> >  
> > Kind Regards,
> >  
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Sunday, 17 March 2013, 23:07
> > >Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >colyngbourne wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith of his country. And Church of England bishops today are considered to be following in an unbroken line of descent from bishops down the ages, from before the Reformation and the C of E follows a "catholic and apostolic faith": so the Church of England is the natural inheritor of Richard's remains. I think it would be respectful to include RC involvement in any re-interment ceremonies, but Richard was not Roman Catholic in the sense that anyone understands it today. The Requiem Masses that JA-H has arranged are in keeping with the kind of service with which Richard would have been familiar, but it doesn't mean that he was "RC" himself.
> > >
> > >Carol responds:
> > >
> > >He certainly was a Roman Catholic, and the church called itself "Catholic" (meaning "universal") from a very early date. Even though the term "Roman Catholic Church" didn't appear in English until the seventeenth century, the Roman Church existed as an institution distinct from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches (and, for a while, the Irish Church, which eventually became absorbed into the Roman one). In the sixteenth century, the Church of England branched off from Roman Catholicism, originally as a kind of Anglo-Catholicism answerable to Henry VIII as head of both Church and State instead of to the Pope. Cranmer produced the first English Book of Common Prayer and, of course, a group of scholars produced the King James Bible a few reigns later. I'm not sure when Anglican clergy were allowed to marry. But those few differences distinguished Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism whether they were called by those names or not.
> > >
> > >I do agree, though, that the similarities between high Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are so marked that Richard, who, after all, owned a Wycliffe Bible, and might well have approved of services conducted in English. Whether the Pope shares that view, I don't know. I think he might disagree with the views of the Anglican bishops. (Not my own view--I'm a lapsed Episcopalian and love the traditional version of the Book of Common Prayer before reformers modernized the language for Rite Two. Don't know if they did the same thing in England.)
> > >
> > >Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21823934

Leicester seems to be getting a little overhwelmed!

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> No, I have already agreed that in some elements of practice and in Richard's understanding of his faith, there are some similarities with modern RC practices. What this doesn't do is mean that the RC church can "claim" him for exclusive RC re-interment.
>
> The Society in replies to letters on the entire matter is stating this -
> whilst understanding "those people who were calling for Richard to be buried in a Catholic Church, history showed that the Church of England was the inheritor of the faith of this country, and as such, it was eminently appropriate for Richard to be buried in [an Anglican]cathedral." [The cathedral mentioned in the letter is Leicester, since that is the one selected by the Society in their dealings, and thence mentioned in the licence - but the principal is the same whichever Anglican place of worship ends up re-interring Richard's remains.]

Carol responds:

I see. I was talking semantics and you're talking about church tradition. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church can't "claim" Richard since the Anglican Church grew out of what is now called the Roman Catholic Church. (Do you like that better than "branched off from"?) I still say that the religion Richard practiced, whatever it was called then, was what we now call Roman Catholicism. But despite the unfortunate origins of the Anglican Church, it has maintained important traditions and Richard would perhaps approve of the service, many elements of which he would recognize, being conducted in English (preferably, IMO only, the graceful cadences of the old Rite One service rather than the unpoetic modern English of Rite Two). I *think* the agreement for an ecumenical service with elements of Roman Catholicism still stands. If they bring in, say, Islam or Buddhism in their quest for ecumenism, I won't be happy, though. They need to keep it Richard-related, not politically correct.

At any rate, I don't care whether the church Richard ends up in is Catholic or Anglican as long as both the service and the monument are beautiful, dignified, respectful, and appropriate. And I don't care whether it's in York or Leicester except that, like almost everyone here, I'm unhappy with certain aspects of the architectural brief.

Can you imagine how irritated Richard would be if his officials were as inefficient as modern bureaucrats? Quick, let's buy another roll of red tape. . . .

Carol

Carol, you said it all and quite eloquently. I second the amendment!

On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:33 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> No, I have already agreed that in some elements of practice and in Richard's understanding of his faith, there are some similarities with modern RC practices. What this doesn't do is mean that the RC church can "claim" him for exclusive RC re-interment.
>
> The Society in replies to letters on the entire matter is stating this -
> whilst understanding "those people who were calling for Richard to be buried in a Catholic Church, history showed that the Church of England was the inheritor of the faith of this country, and as such, it was eminently appropriate for Richard to be buried in [an Anglican]cathedral." [The cathedral mentioned in the letter is Leicester, since that is the one selected by the Society in their dealings, and thence mentioned in the licence - but the principal is the same whichever Anglican place of worship ends up re-interring Richard's remains.]

Carol responds:

I see. I was talking semantics and you're talking about church tradition. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church can't "claim" Richard since the Anglican Church grew out of what is now called the Roman Catholic Church. (Do you like that better than "branched off from"?) I still say that the religion Richard practiced, whatever it was called then, was what we now call Roman Catholicism. But despite the unfortunate origins of the Anglican Church, it has maintained important traditions and Richard would perhaps approve of the service, many elements of which he would recognize, being conducted in English (preferably, IMO only, the graceful cadences of the old Rite One service rather than the unpoetic modern English of Rite Two). I *think* the agreement for an ecumenical service with elements of Roman Catholicism still stands. If they bring in, say, Islam or Buddhism in their quest for ecumenism, I won't be happy, though. They need to keep it Richard-related, not politically correct.

At any rate, I don't care whether the church Richard ends up in is Catholic or Anglican as long as both the service and the monument are beautiful, dignified, respectful, and appropriate. And I don't care whether it's in York or Leicester except that, like almost everyone here, I'm unhappy with certain aspects of the architectural brief.

Can you imagine how irritated Richard would be if his officials were as inefficient as modern bureaucrats? Quick, let's buy another roll of red tape. . . .

Carol

I have to agree with you. It does seem macabre to me.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 9:59 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

> Maybe so. I think there is much in Leicester being tossed into the media which is unhelpful and somewhat inflammatory, considering that opinions on the whole thing are still running very high.
>
> Regardless of much "honour" is attached to the suggested event, I don't think it actually helps for the king's remains to do an "honourable and dignified" 'repeat journey' along the route of the ignominious humiliation he suffered after his death. This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey on his *death*, not on his life as Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North, nor on his time as King of England. All it does is re-emphasise his wretched death and treatment in that place: it doesn't "heal" it or erase it, it precisely evokes it, and in focusing on it, I believe it is entirely the wrong theological and pastoral route to take. Or let's have regular funeral processions from the site of people's deaths or killings to their interments as close as possible to that location, shall we?
>
> The focus being in and on Leicester, is all about his death, not his life and achievements and connections. Along with many other people who feel disturbed at this idea, I cannot celebrate this man's life which took place elsewhere in the country by this kind of "death-journey" focus.
>
> Also, as with everything that has gone on, all decisions are being made locally in the matter of something which should be a nationally-decided thing.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> > To: "<>
> > Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> > Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> > > "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
> > >
> > > Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
> > >
> > > Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I'm sorry, but like you I find little reason to celebrate a previous humiliation.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 1:12
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


 

I have to agree with you. It does seem macabre to me.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2013, at 9:59 AM, colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Maybe so. I think there is much in Leicester being tossed into the media which is unhelpful and somewhat inflammatory, considering that opinions on the whole thing are still running very high.
>
> Regardless of much "honour" is attached to the suggested event, I don't think it actually helps for the king's remains to do an "honourable and dignified" 'repeat journey' along the route of the ignominious humiliation he suffered after his death. This wholly focuses on the one moment of Richard's life he had no control over - one abused by his enemy - and it focuses his re-interment journey on his *death*, not on his life as Duke of Gloucester and Lord of the North, nor on his time as King of England. All it does is re-emphasise his wretched death and treatment in that place: it doesn't "heal" it or erase it, it precisely evokes it, and in focusing on it, I believe it is entirely the wrong theological and pastoral route to take. Or let's have regular funeral processions from the site of people's deaths or killings to their interments as close as possible to that location, shall we?
>
> The focus being in and on Leicester, is all about his death, not his life and achievements and connections. Along with many other people who feel disturbed at this idea, I cannot celebrate this man's life which took place elsewhere in the country by this kind of "death-journey" focus.
>
> Also, as with everything that has gone on, all decisions are being made locally in the matter of something which should be a nationally-decided thing.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is this, coupled with other recent statements that a table-top tomb has *not* been ruled out, a sign that Leicester feels it needs to go on a charm-offensive?
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-King-taken-final-procession-Bosworth/story-18442773-detail/story.html#axzz2Nt5to9dC
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 18 March 2013, 10:52
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> > Just a brief Google on English Reformation, the turning point appears to be with Henry VIII.....which is obvious. If my World History from the late 1960's, yes that makes on "of a certain age", the Catholic Church in most countries was a tool of the monarchies. And there had to be rumblings everywhere. Interesting times.....but the actual C of E, as is, seems to be Henry's decision.
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, "colyngbourne" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Catholic" and "catholic" are two entirely distinct things. The former did not exist in Richard's time.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. Here is a line from the Nicene Creed in English and in Latin: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
> > > "Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam." Here is the comparable line from the Apostles Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting." "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam."
> > >
> > > Not "I believe in the holy Christian Church." Yes, Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous for Richard, but he was unquestionably Roman Catholic as we understand it whether the term existed in his day or not. He acknowledged the Pope's authority in all religious matters, he observed Lent and Advent, he used a rosary and a Book of Hours, he confessed his sins--everything that a medieval or Renaissance Catholic did, he did. And however much he approved of Wycliffe Bibles and possibly of services in English, he would not have approved of Henry VIII throwing off the Pope's authority and making himself the head of both Church and State.
> > >
> > > Which is not to say that the Anglican Church did not eventually become a good thing, however unfortunate its origins and the blood that was spilled in establishing it. I like to think, though, that something like Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible would have happened in any case, without the bloodshed, if an enlightened Yorkist monarchy had allowed gradual change.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes - he may well have been carved up by the rough soldiery but if so it would have happened *before* he was slung over the horse. Also the description of him not having even any cloth to cover his genitals, and the fact that the whole point of carrying him into the town like that was to demonstrate that it was really him and he was really dead, suggests that he was probably carried face-up. [snip]

Carol responds:

That was my impression, too, which is why I've made the rather unpopular suggestion that his spine could have suffered further, postmortem damage by being bent in an unnatural position over the back of a horse.

Claire wrote:

> But also, you referred to a story that Henry had spent a lot of time searching the Tower, trying to find what had ahppened to the boys. Where does that come from? [snip]

Carol responds:

Bacon, I think. I'll try to find time to look it up if I ever get caught up on both posting and real life. But it's common sense, isn't it? The first thing he would do when he got to the Tower would be to search for the boys, his rival claimants for whom he would have to make some sort of arrangements, or their bodies, to officially declare them dead and pin the guilt on Richard. He certainly seized the person of Edward Earl of Warwick at the first opportunity, and Edward's sons were even more dangerous to him.

I think he knew perfectly well that the rumors had been planted and by whom (Morton?). He may even have spread them himself among his troops though of course it's impossible to say. Note the vagueness of the rumor--the boys had died a violent death but "none knew how"--and the rumors don't even mention Richard, leaving it to the hearer to infer his guilt. (Insidious!) Same with the vague charge in the attainder of "shedding infant's blood"--unprovable and vague but leaving it to the reader to infer that it refers to the "princes." If he had searched the Tower but failed to find them, he may have felt safe in making that vague charge but nothing specific in case they showed up at some point. But I think he knew all along that the charge could be false and that he was playing with fire. He may have hoped to learn the truth from EW or EoY, but clearly he never did.

Carol

favefauve wrote:
>
> High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'

Carol responds:

The high Anglican liturgy is in English. Also, Henry VIII dissolved the abbeys and monasteries. To my knowledge, high Anglicans don't pray to saints or use rosaries, and confession is optional, not mandatory. (I could be mistaken on all counts as my background is American and Episcopalian.) Also, the Anglican church allows married priests. I'm sure that there are other differences. It might be interesting to study Cramner's Book of Common Prayer (which, alas, contains a highly unfavorable reference to
Richard III) to the Catholic liturgy of the times.

Question for Maria: When did the term "the Catholic kings" come into use? It refers to Richard's contemporaries.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> That was my impression, too, which is why I've made the rather unpopular
> suggestion that his spine could have suffered further, postmortem damage
> by being bent in an unnatural position over the back of a horse.

Hmm. It might have done, but I don't think any damage of that type would
have the effect of making the scoliosis worse - as opposed to creating
slipped discs he didn't have in life. The kink in his spine is mainly in
the thoracic region so his intercostal muscles would hold his vertebrae in
position until his body actually decayed. To make his scoliosis worse his
ribs would have had to squash up closer together and I think that would be
difficult.

If he appeared to have lordosis or sway-back (which he doesn't) *that* could
be caused by being bent back.

Incidentally, my friend who has scoliosis has one which is so odd I'm not
even sure scoliosis is the right term for it. His spine runs straight up
the middle of his back but a large chunk of it is rotated in place, so the
muscles and nerves in his back attached to the vertebrae assymetrically,
causing severe muscle strain.

> Bacon, I think. I'll try to find time to look it up if I ever get caught
> up on both posting and real life. But it's common sense, isn't it? The
> first thing he would do when he got to the Tower would be to search for
> the boys, his rival claimants for whom he would have to make some sort of
> arrangements, or their bodies, to officially declare them dead and pin the
> guilt on Richard.

It's common sense *if* he didn't kill them himself, so this is evidence that
he didn't, if it's well-attested.

> If he had searched the Tower but failed to find them, he may have felt
> safe in making that vague charge but nothing specific in case they showed
> up at some point. But I think he knew all along that the charge could be
> false and that he was playing with fire. He may have hoped to learn the
> truth from EW or EoY, but clearly he never did.

Yes, that's what I think to. But the fact that he searched carefully and
failed to find them, if it can be established that it *is* a fact, is good
evidence against the More/Morton claim that they were done in in the Tower.
And indeed, if he searched the Tower carefully lookign for evidence he
presumably searched other places as well and if he didn't hear anything to
confirm that they were dead, tehre was probably nothing to find.

Must of us think this is so anyway, but we need to be able to demonstrate it
to sceptics.

In the UK many Anglican churches and cathedrals there are statues of saints with candles which can be bought and set in the holder before the statue. Rosary is more unusual but I do know of one local Anglican church which prays it every Friday. RC Mass is in English too nowadays.
Walk into a strange church and it takes some time to find out what sort it is. The hymn books are a give away though.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> favefauve wrote:
> >
> > High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation too. Only difference is the Pope & his 'infallibility'
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The high Anglican liturgy is in English. Also, Henry VIII dissolved the abbeys and monasteries. To my knowledge, high Anglicans don't pray to saints or use rosaries, and confession is optional, not mandatory. (I could be mistaken on all counts as my background is American and Episcopalian.) Also, the Anglican church allows married priests. I'm sure that there are other differences. It might be interesting to study Cramner's Book of Common Prayer (which, alas, contains a highly unfavorable reference to
> Richard III) to the Catholic liturgy of the times.
>
> Question for Maria: When did the term "the Catholic kings" come into use? It refers to Richard's contemporaries.
>
> Carol
>

Here Here Carol !!!

Regards,

Richard Herbert

"richard herbert" wrote:
>
> Here Here Carol !!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Herbert

Carol responds:

Thanks. Um, which of my messages are you cheering? You didn't quote it.

Carol

Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.

So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.

Jonathan

I thought he died some years ago?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King



Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.

So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.

Jonathan

Well, he's still in contact with the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9940930/A-burial-place-big-enough-for-Richard-IIIs-tomb.html

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King


 
I thought he died some years ago?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King

Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.

So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.

Jonathan

Sorry - wishful thinking on my part;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King



Well, he's still in contact with the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9940930/A-burial-place-big-enough-for-Richard-IIIs-tomb.html

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King



I thought he died some years ago?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King

Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.

So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.

Jonathan

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.
>
> So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.
>
Carol responds:

Another "popular historian" with, evidently, even fewer credentials than Alison Weir--and a Francophile to boot:

http://www.desmondseward.com/

His "Black Legend" may well be the worst book on Richard III ever written. I am seriously considering shredding my copy.

Carol

I notice that he mentioned his book. It annoys me so much that people, who have never properly researched Richard's life and then written books vilifying him, are now coming out of the wood work to comment in the hope of selling their dreadful books.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience.
>
> So that's probably the best recommendation for Leicester that I've yet seen.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> I notice that he mentioned his book. It annoys me so much that people, who have never properly researched Richard's life and then written books vilifying him, are now coming out of the wood work to comment in the hope of selling their dreadful books.

Carol responds:

Not to mention that the book was written in 1983 with a new edition (unrevised?) in 1998. Not exactly the latest research even if it were an objective biography.

Carol

Yes Seward's has to be the most horrible book ever. Hicks is a bit like Leslau, some of the bits of information you get from him are quite interesting, then he goes over the top in banging on about his prejudices and scuppers the lot. I'm surprised he's been so quiet, and also Starkey after the first outburst. Perhaps the latter's made enough money out of the Tudors so doesn't need to bother?   



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

 

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> I notice that he mentioned his book. It annoys me so much that people, who have never properly researched Richard's life and then written books vilifying him, are now coming out of the wood work to comment in the hope of selling their dreadful books.

Carol responds:

Not to mention that the book was written in 1983 with a new edition (unrevised?) in 1998. Not exactly the latest research even if it were an objective biography.

Carol

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience. [snip]

Carol responds:

I've been checking on the line that Seward quoted from Richard's charter of Middleham college: "in part satisfaction of such things as I shall have to answer for at the dreadful Day of Judgment." Seward obviously wants people to think that it refers (or might refer) to the "murder" of Richard's nephews. He doesn't say that the Middleham charter was written in *July 1478*, five years before those murders could have taken place. The quotation is completely out of context. Richard is asking the priests to pray for the "good astate" of the king, the queen, his mother, himself, his wife, and their son, and for their souls after death, along with the souls of his father, his brothers and sisters, and all Christian people. So that line is merely a conventional statement by a pious Catholic who believes in a literal Judgement Day and a literal Purgatory, which the prayers of the faithful will help to shorten not only for him but for everyone on his list.

In other words, Seward is taking the line not only out of the context of the charter itself but out of the context of the time that it was written (about five months after George's death) and implying that it belongs to the time when Richard was king. I wonder if he used "I vote for York" as an excuse to get that line onto the Internet. It has already been copied by at least five websites.

What next?

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King


> So that line is merely a conventional statement by a pious Catholic who
> believes in a literal Judgement Day and a literal Purgatory, which the
> prayers of the faithful will help to shorten not only for him but for
> everyone on his list.

Plus, anybody in Richard's position would have done things they would
afterwards wonder about, because he must have killed - or at least tried to
kill - men in battle, and ordered executions, so anybody with a conscience
would sometimes think "Did I do right there? Am I certain so-and-so was
guilty?" To be worrying about his own moral probity at that point only
shows that he did *have* a well-developed conscience.

> In other words, Seward is taking the line not only out of the context of
> the charter itself but out of the context of the time that it was written
> (about five months after George's death)

So... you think it was mainly George he wanted people to pray for, at that
point, and maybe for Edward for committing fratricide, but he wasn't going
to say that outright because annoying Edward was clearly a Very Bad Idea?

> and implying that it belongs to the time when Richard was king. I wonder
> if he used "I vote for York" as an excuse to get that line onto the
> Internet.

Sounds like it, doesn't it?

We are fighting 548 years of "history", not to mention the writings of a great many scholars(???) and historic authors who base their lives, reputations and livelihood on Tudor superiority. I think fighting the calumny will be a battle. I also think that his being found, and we hope, buried with dignity, solemnity and the proper pomp and circumstance, might be the first be step in clearing and cleansing the horrible things attributed to King Richard III. Other than that, I know not.


On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:49 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience. [snip]

Carol responds:

I've been checking on the line that Seward quoted from Richard's charter of Middleham college: "in part satisfaction of such things as I shall have to answer for at the dreadful Day of Judgment." Seward obviously wants people to think that it refers (or might refer) to the "murder" of Richard's nephews. He doesn't say that the Middleham charter was written in *July 1478*, five years before those murders could have taken place. The quotation is completely out of context. Richard is asking the priests to pray for the "good astate" of the king, the queen, his mother, himself, his wife, and their son, and for their souls after death, along with the souls of his father, his brothers and sisters, and all Christian people. So that line is merely a conventional statement by a pious Catholic who believes in a literal Judgement Day and a literal Purgatory, which the prayers of the faithful will help to shorten not only for him but for everyone on his list.

In other words, Seward is taking the line not only out of the context of the charter itself but out of the context of the time that it was written (about five months after George's death) and implying that it belongs to the time when Richard was king. I wonder if he used "I vote for York" as an excuse to get that line onto the Internet. It has already been copied by at least five websites.

What next?

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [smip] So... you think it was mainly George he wanted people to pray for, at that point, and maybe for Edward for committing fratricide, but he wasn't going to say that outright because annoying Edward was clearly a Very Bad Idea?

Carol responds:

It's hard to say. The charter doesn't specifically mention George (or the expiation of anyone's sins but Richard's, but, as you say, his concern could very well be for deaths he had ordered as constable or people he had killed in battle, as well as any venial sins he'd forgotten to confess.

At any rate, Richard states that the priests should "pray for the good astates of the King our Soverayn Lord and the Quene" (as well as his mother, himself, his wife, his son, and any future "issue"), and for the souls of the same group after their deaths, along with those of his father, his "bretheren and sisters," and "my progenitors
and successors and all Christian soules, in parte of satisfaccion of suche things as at the dredfull day of dome I shal answere for." (The last part is the line that Seward modernizes and quotes out of context.)

Richard also expresses his gratitude to God for all the gifts and honors He has given him and for saving him from "many grete feoperd', parell, and hurt." It's a altogether a marvelous statement of Richard's piety (and even his taste in religious music and his favorite saints), but there's no indication what motivated him to found the chapel, other than to "benefit the parish of Middleham financially," as Sutton and Hammond state.

I do think that George's recent death may have been one motivation, but it doesn't seem to be the primary one.

Carol

That's absolutely right Pamela. I remember once saying that finding him wouldn't turn everything rosy. The fight could be harder than ever because limelight makes money, and even more because of an ill-thought throw-away remark by Dr Appelby.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2013, 23:02
Subject: Re: Re: Where to reinter the King

We are fighting 548 years of "history", not to mention the writings of a great many scholars(???) and historic authors who base their lives, reputations and livelihood on Tudor superiority. I think fighting the calumny will be a battle. I also think that his being found, and we hope, buried with dignity, solemnity and the proper pomp and circumstance, might be the first be step in clearing and cleansing the horrible things attributed to King Richard III.  Other than that, I know not.


On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:49 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Desmond Seward's come out in favour of York, adding a thinly veiled suggestion that the planned chantry chapel was to assuage a guilty conscience. [snip]

Carol responds:

I've been checking on the line that Seward quoted from Richard's charter of Middleham college: "in part satisfaction of such things as I shall have to answer for at the dreadful Day of Judgment." Seward obviously wants people to think that it refers (or might refer) to the "murder" of Richard's nephews. He doesn't say that the Middleham charter was written in *July 1478*, five years before those murders could have taken place. The quotation is completely out of context. Richard is asking the priests to pray for the "good astate" of the king, the queen, his mother, himself, his wife, and their son, and for their souls after death, along with the souls of his father, his brothers and sisters, and all Christian people. So that line is merely a conventional statement by a pious Catholic who believes in a literal Judgement Day and a literal Purgatory, which the prayers of the faithful will help to shorten not only for him but for everyone on his list.

In other words, Seward is taking the line not only out of the context of the charter itself but out of the context of the time that it was written (about five months after George's death) and implying that it belongs to the time when Richard was king. I wonder if he used "I vote for York" as an excuse to get that line onto the Internet. It has already been copied by at least five websites.

What next?

Carol









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Are you having a laugh. The COE was created so fat Henry could get a divorce and grab the churches wealth for himself. Whatever you believe Richard would expect a full requiem mass by a representative of papal authority. He lived a pious life and never disagreed with papal authority. Unlike the afore mentioned who was a disgrace as a man, husband and head of the english church. I would rather be in purgatory than accept a church that started with the tyrant fat henry. Regards
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Sender:
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:48:03
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King

Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Just playing Devil's Advocate here.....if Richard was not a Catholic, as we think of now, why did he need a Papal Dispensation to marry Anne? Also, if all those nunneries, friaries, and great churches were not Catholic, why, other than their land and riches, did Henry VIII tear them down?
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.
>
> What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.
>
> Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: colyngbourne
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> >
> >
> > > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > > of his country.
> >
> > But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> > intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> > priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, but what about the challenge to Henry's authority. The Pope as Head of the Catholic Church had authority, which was absolute, over kings as well as commoners. Henry's inability to obtain a divorce from Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boleyn, or in other words, the Pope's continuing refusal to grant him an annulment, frustrated him to the extent that he was willing to break with Rome although he himself continued along the path of the old religion in private. Therefore, the adoption of the new religion and the establishment of the Church of England, with Henry as head, could be seen, arguably, as a political necessity with financial incentives especially as Henry had gone through all the millions left him by his avaricious father. The royal coffers needed refilling particularly in order to keep the merry-go-round of entertainments, jousts etc going. Thomas Cromwell and Anne Boleyn are both seen as pursuing the Protestant religion with zeal and no doubt enlightened Henry of all the dishonest and corrupt practices taking place in the name of religion in the monasteries and parishes. Henry absolved himself of this by projecting responsibility onto the shortcomings of the church.
Elaine

--- In , c.nelson1@... wrote:
>
> Are you having a laugh. The COE was created so fat Henry could get a divorce and grab the churches wealth for himself. Whatever you believe Richard would expect a full requiem mass by a representative of papal authority. He lived a pious life and never disagreed with papal authority. Unlike the afore mentioned who was a disgrace as a man, husband and head of the english church. I would rather be in purgatory than accept a church that started with the tyrant fat henry. Regards
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> Sender:
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:48:03
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
>
> Our understanding of "Catholic" now is in the context of there now being a state church which is the Church of England. *Then* in Richard's time there was only one faith - and it was not called "the catholic church" - it was Western Christianity, which was led by the Pope. There was no other way of being Christian in England. Richard was following the faith of his nation - quite naturally and rightly - but he wasn't following it and rejecting some idea of Protestantism. He wasn't following it under a label of "Catholicism. The church in England continued its national Christianity in the name of the "Church of England" after the Reformation.
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Just playing Devil's Advocate here.....if Richard was not a Catholic, as we think of now, why did he need a Papal Dispensation to marry Anne? Also, if all those nunneries, friaries, and great churches were not Catholic, why, other than their land and riches, did Henry VIII tear them down?
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, and the inheritor of that "going forward" was the Church of England. When the Church of England began, it didn't "cut out" the previous bishops but they continued - as inheritors of the faith that had gone before.
> >
> > What Richard would have been familiar with in his faith "sounds" like Catholicism, but he was not "a Catholic" - he was a Christian living out the faith of his country - that faith grew and adapted and moved forward to become the Church of England - it did not "break away" from something called "Catholicism" that existed before the CoE.
> >
> > Yes, Richard would today reocgnise more of RC practice than that of Anglicanism, but that is not the point. He was not a "Catholic" and cannot be claimed as one post-mortem. He was living out the Christian faith of his country and the Church of England is the official continuing inheritor of that national faith, upholding it nationally.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: colyngbourne
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:56 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Where to reinter the King
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, with respect to JA-H, Richard was not a Catholic. The Catholic
> > > > church did not exist in his time. He was a Christian following the faith
> > > > of his country.
> > >
> > > But the faith of his country was one which believed in confession, the
> > > intercession of saints, rosaries, penances, purgatory, a celibate
> > > priesthood, eating fish on Fridays and the authority of the pope.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>