Dramatic News

Just a few thoughts arising from this topic.

1. No one really knows when someone is conceived, except in unusual
circumstances, but this was discussed in more depth on this forum
awhile back.

2. What sort of King would had Clarence made? I'm not sure I would
want to risk him.

3. Would Richard had been adverse to some reform in the Church for
example didn't he own an English language New Testament? Of course
certain reforms may had saved the Catholic faith in England. Richard
has been thought of as being "Puritan" - if that term can be used in
a fifteenth century context - by some.

4. As for trying to find who is the rightful heir to the throne, that
would be impossible now. Going right back to 1066 what right did
William have to the throne? Or Harold for that matter? Though Henry 1
did marry a descendant of the old Royal Family.

Helen

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> Just a few thoughts arising from this topic.
>
> 1. No one really knows when someone is conceived, except in unusual
> circumstances, but this was discussed in more depth on this forum
> awhile back.

True; or half true - the mother tends to have a fairly good idea.
Also, if she were having an affair, indiscretions may have been
noticed by others. Purely on dates, it is possible that Edward was
York's son - but even there the balance of probability is that he was
conceived while York was away. It is this TAKEN TOGETHER WITH a
string of actions by the personalities concerned that only Edward's
bastardy seems to completely explain, which makes Michael K. jones'
case so strong.

>
> 2. What sort of King would had Clarence made? I'm not sure I would
> want to risk him.

No. however, perhaps he wasn't as barmy as all that. What you have to
do is to relook at his whole career reminding yourself that at least
from 1464 he knew he was the rightful king. And that Edward was doing
his damnedest to prevent him making a powerful marriage alliance,
both before he married Isabel and after her death. He also seems to
have genuinely feared Edward and the Woodvilles. Who knows how he
might have turned out in different circumstances.

>
> 3. Would Richard had been adverse to some reform in the Church for
> example didn't he own an English language New Testament? Of course
> certain reforms may had saved the Catholic faith in England.
Richard
> has been thought of as being "Puritan" - if that term can be used
in
> a fifteenth century context - by some.

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking by (Protestant?)
Ricardians on this one. Reform from within is one thing - there is no
doubt Richard was critical of the morals of the clergy - but he does
seem to have been very un-Protestant in the sense that he venerated
saints, endowed religious foundations, founded chantries (ie
believing in the power of the prayers of the living to shorten time
in Purgatory), etc. I can't see him breaking with Rome. I see the
Wycliffe New Testament more in the line of Richard's general
preference for the vernacular (eg statutes in English). So this would
put him amongst the school of Catholic reformers. Which is what
Hughes feels. In fact, as regards the morals of the clergy, a
celibate priesthood was the Catholic ideal after all.


>
> 4. As for trying to find who is the rightful heir to the throne,
that
> would be impossible now. Going right back to 1066 what right did
> William have to the throne? Or Harold for that matter? Though Henry
1
> did marry a descendant of the old Royal Family.

Well, exactly. I think this is just tabloid sensationalism. They know
their readers won't have heard of Edward IV, but they would be VERY
interested in an Aussie rival to the House of Windsor.

Marie
>