e-petition - Burial of King Richard the III at a catholic burial site

[Richard 111]

Sign the petition here
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38533


Burial of King Richard the III at a catholic burial site

Responsible department: Ministry of Justice


The remains of Richard III have been discovered and exhumed. The
suggestion is that he will be buried in Leicester Cathedral. However,
it seems wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to bury the former
Monarch in the grounds of a church of which he was never a member and
which was created by the son of the man responsible for his death and
ignominious burial. I am not petitioning on religious or sectarian
grounds but I believe the dead of any persuasion have a right to be
interred in a place appropriate to their beliefs.

[Don P]

1. As we all know, the dead have no rights -- not even a right
to authorize you or me to say what their religious beliefs might have
been, let alone about novelties originating years after their actual deaths.
2. Leicester cathedral is a consecrated place of the national church,
viz. the Church of England. Anglican tradition by now provides for the
burial of all Christians regardless of denomination. Anglican church
law for the first century after Richard's death would have classified
him as a member of the C of E, whatever he might have had to say on
the matter.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa Canada)

[Surreyman]

The C of E didn't exist in the first century after Richard's death.

[Surreyman]

(Well, for a lot of!).

[Nightjar]

>>> Don Phillipson
>>> Carlsbad Springs
>>> (Ottawa Canada)
>>
>> The C of E didn't exist in the first century after Richard's death.
>
> (Well, for a lot of!).
>

Also, under Henry VIII it was a Catholic church, although with Henry at
the head rather than the Pope. Edward VI made it Protestant, but it did
not actually become illegal to be Catholic until Elizabeth's reign.

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:59:57 +0100, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>Also, under Henry VIII it was a Catholic church, although with Henry at
>the head rather than the Pope. Edward VI made it Protestant, but it did
>not actually become illegal to be Catholic until Elizabeth's reign.

It was never actually illegal to be a Catholic, if you were rich
enough to pay the fines.

The family of the Dukes of Norfolk remained, and are still,
Catholics.

Of course Catholics were not permitted to do a whole range of things,
including seeking public employment, but how much of the later
legislation was actually anti-Irish rather than anti-Catholic is a
matter of dispute.

Also remember that the Catholic Church had said that it was perfectly
legal to assassinate Elizabeth and Catholic priests kept getting
caught plotting to kill her...

[Nightjar]

On 22/07/2013 10:39, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:59:57 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Also, under Henry VIII it was a Catholic church, although with Henry at
>> the head rather than the Pope. Edward VI made it Protestant, but it did
>> not actually become illegal to be Catholic until Elizabeth's reign.
>
> It was never actually illegal to be a Catholic, if you were rich
> enough to pay the fines.

You may be thinking of the 12 pence fine for not attending Church, which
devout Catholics would probably have preferred to pay if they could
afford it.

However, the penalties for ministering the sacraments except as laid
down in the Act of Uniformity were 100 marks for the first offence, 400
marks for the second offence and forfeiture of all goods and chattels
plus imprisonment for life for the third offence.

> The family of the Dukes of Norfolk remained, and are still,

> Catholics....

The fourth Duke was executed and his lands and titles forfeited for his
involvement in the Ridolfi plot. They were not restored to his heirs
until the Restoration, when the Catholic belief became socially acceptable.

Colin Bignell

[Surreyman]

Sure, many Catholics were executed for plots, etc. on top of their religion.
But why, therefore, many other burnings, priest holes etc.?

[Bill]

Burnings of Catholics in Protestant England?

When?

As for 'priest holes', priests were undoubtedly the agents of a
foreign power intent on war and the assassination of the monarch.

Obviously English Catholics hid them with treasonous intent.

Elizabeth of England wasn't a terribly sympathetic person when it came
to treason and plots and I imagine her temper was made even shorter by
the odd musket ball spranging off walls now and again as she passed
by...

Interesting people the Tudor monarchs. Lots of plots, every one
failed and just about everyone involved died horribly.

Succeeded by the Stuarts who were unseated in all directions and, more
or less, failed utterly, at least the men did...

And yet the Tudor monarchs, ruthless and lethal, surrounded by spies
and torturers and secret policemen and who are the inventors of the
idea of a royal bodyguard (before them there were no formal royal
bodyguards, the Plantagenet kings did their own killing of assassins)
are looked back on as eccentric romantics.

[Nightjar]

On 23/07/2013 13:07, Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
>> Sure, many Catholics were executed for plots, etc. on top of their religion.
>> But why, therefore, many other burnings, priest holes etc.?
>
> Burnings of Catholics in Protestant England?
>

> When?..

Edward and Elizabeth both burnt a few although with nothing like the
enthusiasm of their father for burning Catholics in Catholic England or
of Mary for burning Protestants.

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:06:30 +0100, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 23/07/2013 13:07, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...
>>> Sure, many Catholics were executed for plots, etc. on top of their religion.
>>> But why, therefore, many other burnings, priest holes etc.?
>>
>> Burnings of Catholics in Protestant England?
>>
>> When?..
>
>Edward and Elizabeth both burnt a few

Do you have any details?

although with nothing like the
>enthusiasm of their father for burning Catholics in Catholic England or
>of Mary for burning Protestants.

Henry was a Catholic (and remained a Catholic until his dying day) who
burnt heretics.

Mary was a Catholic fanatic who burned Protestants.

[Surreyman]

Nonsense.
The vast majority of Catholics simply wanted to worship.
Probably, about the same proportion were involved in plots as are UK Moslems today.

[Bill]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Probably, about the same proportion were involved in plots as are UK Moslems today.

Quite possibly even fewer than that.

However the prevalence of priest holes in every house bigger than a
cottage does seem to indicate that there was considerable support for
the various plots and plotters.

Well, unless they're actually Victorian 'romantic architecture...

(There's on in a pub I know that's actually an eighteenth century
structure but with a 'priest hole'. When you mention the disparity of
dates they then say it was built to hide Dick Turpin as he was
arrested there...)

There's an awful lot of that about...

The plots against Elizabeth seem to have all been inspired, financed
and organised by Englishmen living abroad.

They look to me far more like the Pakistani terrorist assaults into
India today than the British Islamic local attacks with the various
terrorists/attackers being launched by a foreign power for their own
political purposes.

An awful lot of anti-Elizabeth stuff is really just pro-Phillip of
Spain stuff designed to place Mary QofS on the throne.

I'm still interested in anyone being burned by Elizabeth. I know
burning was a penalty reserved by that time for women for the murder
of their husbands and, now and again, it was carried out, but not for
being a Catholic...

[Surreyman]

The point I was making was that priest holes were essentially for priests, not plotters, re your wholesale condemnation of Catholics above.

[Bill]

Ah but we don't know how many priests were plotters.

Several obviously were.

Indeed the English sent spies to infiltrate an 'English seminary' in
France and managed to use those spies to intercept the communications
between Mary QofS and various plotters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Gifford

[Don P]

On 22-Jul-2013 3:17 AM, Surreyman wrote:

> The C of E didn't exist in the first century after Richard's death.

The C of E was agreed (by both Celts and Romanists) to exist at
the Synod of Whitby 664 AD -- so we might say the Church of Ireland
dates from 664 (so far as Ionian or Celtic practices continued in
Christian Ireland when England adopted Roman practices.)

Any "church of [nation]" was defined in mediaeval times not by
church doctrine or practice so much as by place. Ireland and
England were recognized as distinct nations, with local control
of their own churches (i.e. bishops were all local natives, not
foreigners posted in by higher authority the way the Normans
imposed Norman bishops on English sees) so the Church of England
and the Church of Ireland made sense. This could not be said
of Germany (undefined and subdivided between many feudal rulers)
or of France before (say) 1350-1400.

The concept of "nation" may have had its roots in mediaeval
universities, where students came from all over Europe and worked
principally in Latin (lingua franca) but lived and organized themselves
by language (Polish, English, French, etc.) in "nations." When Richard
III was alive all Europeans recognized the Church of England as real and
functional and distinct from general Christendom under the Pope.

[JNugent]

Enoch Powell used to say the same thing, and for, I suspect, much the
same reason.

Do you know what revisionism is?

[Don P]

On 14-Aug-2013 6:42 PM, JNugent wrote:

> Do you know what revisionism is?

Well, J. M. Keynes did. He pointed out, when the
facts turned out different, he changed his opinions.