King Richard III’s right to a Catholic Requiem Mass is sacrificed on the altar of false ecumenism

In an announcement released on the Church of England Leicester cathedral website Malcolm McMahon OP, the Catholic Bishop of Nottingham, has acquiesced to the Church of England’s arrogant presumption to conduct its funeral rites for King Richard III, the last Catholic Plantagenet monarch in a cathedral looted from Catholics and stolen by the son of Richard III’s sworn enemy, King Henry VIII.

‘The following statement has been made on behalf of the Bishop of Nottingham, concerning the reinterment of the remains of King Richard III:

“The Bishop is pleased that the body of King Richard III has been found under the site of Greyfriars Church in Leicester, in which it was buried following the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, and that it will be reinterred with dignity in the city where he has lain for over five hundred years. Richard III was one of the last Catholic monarchs of England and his death was a decisive moment in British history, but the ultimate decision as to what form the interment takes lies with the Government and the Church of England, since he will be buried in Leicester Cathedral.

“In accordance with long-established ecumenical practice, Bishop Malcolm will be happy t take part in any form of ceremony which takes place to mark his final burial.”

Father Andrew Cole
Private Secretary to the Bishop of Nottingham’

Protect the Pope comment: Why should English Catholics in the 21st century care about King Richard III receiving a Catholic Requiem Mass? It is an established principle of sacramental and liturgical theology that Catholics have the right to the sacraments and rites of the Church.  King Richard III’s rights as a Catholic are being sacrificed on the altar of Ecumenism. The Church of England’s highhanded assumption that it will conduct the funeral rite of a Catholic king once again highlights their airbrushing out of the true Catholic history of this country by their pretense that they are the successors of the English Catholic Church. The Church of England is the creation of the Tudor Heresiarch’s schism from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and his reign marks a radical disjuncture in the history of Christianity in England. There is no continuity between the Catholic Church of St Augustine of Canterbury, St Anselm, St Cuthbert, and Saints Thomas More and John Fisher, and the Church of England.

Of course there is no blame attached to contemporary members of the Church of England, just as there is no blame attached to contemporary Catholics for the atrocities that occurred during the Crusades, or the Inquisition. However, Blessed John Paul II helped Catholics realise the importance of the purification of memories, with his public statements about the evils committed by members of the Catholic Church in the past. There will only be true ecumenism between English Catholics and the Church of England when the Established Church stops pretending that it is the successor to the Catholic Church, stops airbrushing Catholics out of its victor’s history, and publicly acknowledges the evils committed by members of the Church of England against Catholics.

H/T Rifleman819

http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/

64 comments to King Richard III’s right to a Catholic Requiem Mass is sacrificed on the altar of false ecumenism

  • AsItIs

    Remind me as to the number of ‘Catholic’ Bishops who challenged Henry VIII? Today’s re-run??

  • This is a travesty and one that shows, yet again, that the Catholic Bishops have about as much spine as a jellyfish. I do not blame + McMahon but ++ Nichols and the Bishops collectively.

    Just how this move can be excused on the grounds of ‘ecumenism’ is beyond me.

  • ConfusedofChi

    God bless The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and their celebration of Mass in Greyfriars Church (the Old Guildhall in Chichester, Sussex. The First Mass since the Reformation………..
    ‘The Guildhall’ was used in 1588 for a trial of four priests, two of whom were then hung/drawn/quartered outside Chichester.
    Now that is a positive step in “the purification of memories”.

    I’m a Catholic!!

  • Celia

    Since Richard III’s bones were discovered there has been a long and unedifying squabble as to where he should be reburied, but little thought given to the likelihood that Richard, who whatever his faults was a devout Catholic in the manner of his times, would not particularly appreciate being reburied in any Anglican church.

    The word ‘reburied’ is relevant here. He was initially buried in the choir of the Franciscan church in Leicester and although the archaeological evidence suggests that the burial was hurried and unceremonious it is unthinkable that the friars would not have said a Requiem Mass for him as soon as possible, and remembered him until the Dissolution 50 years later. Catholic members of the Richard III Society have, I believe, organised annual masses for him in recent years, so the needs of his soul have not been neglected.

    As far as I’m aware, Leicester Cathedral is not planning a full requiem, as opposed to the sort of reburial service used when, for example, bodies have to be removed from graveyards. But I suppose they could always appal us by deciding on a celebration of his life, complete with choked-up relatives, of whom there seem to be a remarkable number around.

    Having said all of which,full marks for the reminder of the true relationship between the Catholic and the Anglican church, which is airbrushed away all too often these days. A final thought- what would Richard have made of the distinct possibility of women ‘priests’ being involved in his reburial?

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,

    Many many thanks.

    We as Catholics owe (along with Protestant Nonconformists, btw) the present institutional Church of England no favours.
    The RC diocese of Nottingham is vastly compromised in this matter-because whatever the CoE bishop of Leicester is , his priests and deacons included, he is …sadly not a bishop ,with no priests …and with no deacons in the Catholic sense.They are but all ministers of the Church of England and have no Apostolic orders conferred through the Universal Church.Lovely people, but not Catholics.
    Before the ecumenical thuggee get me …let me state the Catholic case.All ordinations between 1549-1552 according to Cranmer’s Prayer Books and Ordinals made it crystal clear that they were not conferring Catholic Orders in the Apostolic succession and for the ensuing 450 years afterwards.

    So the bishop of Nottigham is collaborating in an insulting travesty-sorry ..there is no other way of putting it-I bet it will be a “multi-faith ” ceremony as well.

    Whatever the event turns out like ..it will not be a Catholic Requiem Mass.

    Richard Plantagenet was an annointed sovereign-whatever the subsequent contraversies that surround him .He died in battle at Bosworth in 1485 and like all the dead in that final battle…he was a Catholic Englishman.He died 45 years before the earliest part of the English Reformation.

    And what do English Catholics in 2013 do?? -to just tamely allow the ecclesial body founded by the son of his bitterest foe(Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond) to conduct their Rites over Richard 111rd in a church stolen from us at the Reformation?

    What if the entire RC Hierarchy in E and W had made it very clear as soon as the DNA evidence was available that they claimed the rites over the human remains of the King? I bet it would have met with a grudging respect for our honesty, if nothing else.And Richard would have had his Catholic requeim.

    But no …like fearful men willing to connive in an historical porky of prize-winning proportions they tamely conceded the ultimate insult to Richard’s memory.

    If you look at the Leicester diocese website over on the event -the Reformation is neatly airbrushed and that dirty word “Catholic” appears nowhere.

    If Catholic bishops won’t stand up for a dead Catholic sovereign…that says something doesn’t it?
    Shameful.

    • Jonathan Marshall

      Evening, 819 – a masterly post, which sums up the whole abysmal capitulation very well. Why is it that every time something is put forward as “ecumenical” it invariably means that we Catholics give way to protestants and worse? When is an ecumenical ‘service’ ever conducted according to Catholic beliefs?

      I find it appalling that the Catholic bishops of England are not prepared to insist upon a Catholic burial for a Catholic king. Protestants and others should be welcome – and indeed encouraged -to attend; but it should be a Catholic Mass.

      • Riflkeman819

        Jonathon,
        Many thanks………………the CoE guest list will be interesting, won’t it?
        Chair of the local Sikh gudwaras, the Leicester Rainforrest Alliance…etc etc…in a cringe-making attempt to become ecumenical and inclusive.

        By conceding the CoE’s alleged right to conduct this ceremony it shows the Uncle Tom tendencies of the Catholic hierarchy. This is 2013 and not 1956…and despite our awful leadership the RCC in England and Wales probably has as much attendance as the Established Church…hnmm.

        And I bet our hierarchy will be so thankful to be invited as guests by the CoE into a Catholic building , built by and looted from English Catholics.
        A terrible insult to the Royal family of kings who ruled England between 1126 and the battle of Bosworth.

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,

    And on a related topic -the claims of the Venerable Order of St.John of Jerusalem and its relationship to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

    If you ever go to the Clerkenwell Gatehouse-the HQ of StJohn….and visit their lovely Museum a knowledgable Catholic will soon discover an overwhelming need on the part of the Venerable Order to have some organic link to Malta.

    One of their earliest Anglican founders scoured the Mediterranean to bring
    back items of the Sovereign Order to place in the St.John Museum-to give the illusion of continuity between the two entities.

    In fact the “Venerable” Order is a Protestant creation from the British Crown in 1888 and has no link whatsovever with the pre-Reformation Order of Malta dating from 1099….and you can throw the (very nice)tour guides at Clerkenwell into a tizz just by mentioning the Reformation.

    And some of the Venerable Order’s printed guidebooks indulge in a truly buttock-clenching orgy of banality when covering the events of the Reformation era-very sad really.

    I think it would be a step in real ecumenism to have some genuine historical “glasnost” over issues like the reburial of Richard 111rd and the claims of the Venerable Order of St.John.An acknowledgement , as Deacon Nick says , that there is no historical connection between the Anglican present and the Catholic past. Therein lies the “niceness” of Anglicanism -to wistfully believe in a past that simply wasn’t true-a myth.

    Papering over historical truth demeans everyone and fools no-one.

  • Appreciative Protestant Reader

    Give the King a Catholic burial, I say.

    • Rifleman819

      Appreciative ,

      Many thanks-in denying historical truth for a variant of political correctness is so ridiculous.

      In a lovely moment of naughty imagination one could well see the senior imam of the Leicester mosques being invited to some Kuffur burial in their top Christian mosque- a ceremony of a khan who died 500 years ago and struggling to equate who are the Sunnis and who the Shi’ites between these confusing varieties of Nazereenes involved in the multi-cultural service….and left gasping at the sight of wimmin taking part.

      Still -not his bag …just avoid those “devils on horseback” at the after service eateries. And struggling to see what the hadith says about Waitrose grape cordial …hmmm…

  • My limited knowledge of history tells me that the young Princes, the heirs of Edward IV, were in the Tower when Richard declared himslef not Protector but King. It is true that the Tudors had as much interest in murdering the young boys as Richard had but the matter is far from settled. I am not roused to rebellion over Richard`s burial.

  • bernadette

    Un.Believable. This cannot be real. The man lived as a Catholic, he died as a Catholic, why would he choose a heretic’s funeral ? This has to be a joke.

    This is a warning to all of us: make sure you leave clear and direct instructions for your own funeral, lest some politically correct Liberals/Secularists come along and re-align the meaning of your life. This week I have stipulated my own wishes and given them to my parish priest, just in case any “well-meaning” family members should decide differently.

    Poor Richard III.

  • John Dare

    You might well ask, and what would he have thought of ordinary people being able to write, in English, and to have opinions, in public.

    • Rifleman819

      John ,

      There was a flourishing vernacular literature in England for at least a century
      before the Wars of the Roses.And much of it printed too.

      And in a parallel phenomenon……the first printed Bibles in Catalan (of all languages!)…appeared in 1480, some 50 years before the Reformation.

      • John Dare

        Morning Rif. Catholics – only show in town. Lollards?

        Ordinary englishmen reading – an example of many things that the late king ‘would have made’ nothing of, like Ipads, central heating, women priests.

        • Rifleman819

          Lollards-tiny , tiny sect…Wycliffe was disowned by the Church fairly early on-but had friends in high places..funnily enough…Leicestershire was a stronghold of Lollardy.
          Richard 111rd…Ipad …”a device for intelligence…and know ye..thine wi-fi did’st hit a dead spot near Boaworth-I am undone!”

          Central heating-”’tis indeed a goodly device….but ne’er compared to a buxom doxy”

          Women priests-”Hie thee to a nunnery , else establish ye a venture of the Central Heating-’tis thy choice, o wenches”

          Sorted.

          • Rifleman819

            For the caitive Dare,

            Know ye therefore …this device of Ipad …’tis bewitched….I typeth “Bosworth”…yet loh!…the congregation of stout bloggers…records a different rendering……imfamy …imfamy…they have got it in for me………..

            Ricardus Tertius Rex

            “Loyalty bindeth me”

    • Appreciative Protestant Reader

      “You might well ask, and what would he have thought of ordinary people being able to write, in English, and to have opinions, in public.”

      I might well ask: and what’s that got to do with the topic in hand (his burial service)?

      • Jonathan Marshall

        Jolly good question, APR (if I may so abbreviate you).

        Mr Dare is a professional troll with too much time on his hands and too little interest in engaging in actual reasoned debate. He’s best ignored.

  • Daniel

    Did the Bishops make the case for King Richard being interred in a Catholic Cathedral with a Catholic ceremony?

    • Martin

      Oh come on. You know perfectly well that with one or two honourable exceptions the English bishops are utterly useless, and even the decent couple would probably be inhibited by niceness from saying what needed to be said on this matter.

  • I am looking forward to the “celebration of his life” and will find the “choked up relatives” particularly amusing!

  • Rod George

    Richard 111 should be buried in a catholic cathedral according to the rites of the catholic church appertaining at the time of his death. That he is not going to be reflects disgracefully on the catholic hierarchy of this country. No doubt there will be many catholics ( bishops, priests and lay ) falling over themselves in order to take part in this anglican service.The false ecumenism practised by our bishops only serves to confirm the anglican church in its errors.

  • Lynda

    Truth is not tolerated by the dictatorship of reason, even less truth-tellers.

  • Rifleman819

    Dear All,
    As an historian…there is a tantalising case for a “counter-factual” history.Queen Anne died at Kensington Palace on 07.30am 1st August 1714-the last of the Stuarts.Imagine that some madcap Jacobites had stolen her body to use it as a focus of veneration and a rallying point for the followers of her half-brother James Edward Stuart(James 111rd-the Old Pretender).

    Imagine that it had been carted to any number of safe Catholic/Stuart/Jacobite houses in southern England..in the run-up to the 1715 rising…then it mysteriously disappeared.

    And say last year the remains were found at Arundel Castle-home of the Duke of Norfolk.The RC Hierarchy want to give Anne-a Stuart -a good Requiem Mass.

    Cue outrage from the Church of England who point out that Anne was born and raised a Protestant with an Anglican baptism in the Chapel Royal. Therefore she should be buried under Anglican Rites in Westminster Abbey.And they would be absolutely right-Catholics would have no claim whatsoever on the mortal remains of a Queen of England and Britain.

    But as has been pointed out by Deacon Nick….we have insulted a Catholic Plantagenet for a ha’porth of witless and worthless “ecumenism”.

  • Londiniensis

    I find this jumping up and down by the “plus catholique que le pape” brigade a trifle irritating, because it misses the central point. The British establishment, temporal and spiritual, is not giving the mortal remains of King Richard III the re-burial appropriate to the dignity of a king. The rather hole-in-the-corner service planned for Leicester (with all due respect to Leicester) smacks more of re-interring some old bones found in a car park.

    It should also be borne in mind that Anglicans have long considered the CofE to be the “catholic” church in England, in direct and unbroken succession to the church founded in England by St Augustine of Canterbury. Until that canard can be disposed of – and our bishops seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to preach this clearly – all calls for a Roman Catholic funeral service for mortal remains which not even the British establishment takes seriously, must be regarded as singularly pointless.

    • Martin

      “Anglicans have long considered the CofE to be the “catholic” church in England, in direct and unbroken succession to the church founded in England by St Augustine of Canterbury”

      I find that asking an Anglican “Do you think St. Augustine himself would regard you as belonging to the Church he belonged to?” induces some interesting mental contortions.

  • Riflkeman819

    Londiniensis,

    Hope you’re not Richard Chartres in disguise!
    Yes you are correct.As I wrote earlier….Cranmer intended to create an entirely new ministry in the Protestant type-modelled on Geneva as much as anything else.This intention was far more radical than Lutheran theologies of the priesthood.But in order to head off another Pilgrimage of Grace Cranmer had to concede”bishops”, vestments etc …but each to a lesser extent as time wore on.
    This sleight of hand never fooled contemporary Catholics. But if one dates the CoE to the Elizabethan Act of Supremacy in 1559….the Anglican Church in England has had the unfettered support of Crown and State for 454 years.
    Anglican implants were generally rejected in Ireland and Wales…becoming disestablished in 1871 and 1920 respectively.
    Catholic bishops are still anxious to pander to the Anglican Establishment …not to rock the boat , to appease and mollify and seem willing to let a Catholic sovereign be put to rest(?) by bishops who are not bishops, priests who are not priests who are not priests and deacons who are not deacons.
    They are in Catholic eyes good baptised Christians with a ministry to be sure, but since 1896 and 1948 …neither Rome nor the Orthodox recognise their ordinations as Apostolic. Hence what can one make of the events to unfold in Leicester cathedral?

  • Bob Hayes

    The closing line of the letter quoted by Deacon Nick, sums up so much of the current hierarchy: “In accordance with long-established ecumenical practice, Bishop Malcolm will be happy to take part in any form of ceremony which takes place to mark his final burial.” In other words: ‘Please add me to the invitation list, so I can take my place as part of the Establishment’.

    St John Fisher – Pray for us

    St Thomas More – Pray for us

  • John Dare

    Following Rifs tack; if they find the bones of a christian King of Jerusalem [or similar]in Syria, will there be a similar line up for the burial?

  • Rifleman819

    It is interesting to record the supposed origin of the phrase “nosey Parker”-it allegedly relates to Elizabeth’s first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury-Matthew Parker…(1559-75).As scholar and later Master of Corpus Christi Cambridge….Parker’s agents scoured the great monastic scriptoria of Catholic England to search for manuscripts “proving” that the Church in England had asserted its independence from Rome almost as soon as Augustine landed in Kent in 597AD.
    With great irony …”nosey” Parker’s activities actually saved many treasures of English vernacular and liturgical works from the fires of the Reformation.

    And of course ………he found nothing of any substance to underpin his claims.
    From 597-1559 AD…the English Church was and remained the RC Church “in” England…it was never the Church “of” England-much to Parker’s peeved annoyance.
    And Catholics regard Parker’s predecessor-Reginald Pole as the last Apostolic Archbishop of Canterbury.Cardinal Pole’s mother, Bl Margaret de la Pole, was hacked to death in the Tower on 29th May 1541 in an act of Tudor /Lancastrian dynastic and religious vengeance.
    Nope, we owe the Church of England and the post-Reformation monarchy no favours.

  • John Dare

    You could say the same of any church Rif, that was then, this is now.

  • Rifleman819

    John ,

    Sorry no………..for example …just look at the Orthodox Churches…where liturgy reigns utterly supreme and in essence has not changed in over 1000 years.
    There was shock and astonishment recently in the Greek papers (remember they have enough on their hands with the economy)…when a bishop …a bishop!!…intoned a few words in modern, demotic Greek and not from liturgical Greek.
    Complete outcry.

    Your comment is what traditional believers would probably call “relativism”….because the people of today lack the concept of eternity and a sense of “numen”-an otherness. 21st century values-if there are any-are uncomfortable with absolute claims…such as the RC Church has.

    And that explains ecumenism and the problems of Anglicanism-it temporises, it wants to be nice, it likes to be liked-all very laudable but that does not sit well with something , for instance , out of any of St Paul’s Letters.

    And that is why in both theological and conceptual terms Rome and the Orthodox have not recognised Anglican orders. If it was right and wrong over life and death 2000 years ago -if you still hold the message ..it will be wrong today.
    The Apostolic churches will never concede over credal doctrine…something that eludes Guardian journalists.
    It ain’t a popularity contest-it is about saving your eternal soul.

  • John Dare

    So really, you seem to be saying that Anglicanism is very English :)

  • Rifleman819

    John ,

    Absolutely right………Henry V111 and his daughter very cleverly…(and without knowing it) started the Whig view of history-Hawkins, Drake , the Armada, the Glorious Revolution of 1688…healthy dollops of Victorian prose, esp Charles Kingsley, the global spread of English Anglicanism amongst the happy colonials…missionary work in Basutoland etc etc.

    There was a late Victorian jibe at the resurgence of British Catholicism from the late 1840′s onwards as the “Italian mission to the Irish”. Perhaps in a way this was true…but the Industrial Revolution was a long term fatal blow to the Church of England. The dissolution of the monasteries and the great land grabs by an enriched gentry ensured the loyalty of the ruling elites but the CoE then became “squire and spire”-the huntin’ , shootin’ fishin’ vicar…Oxbridge educated…never really connected with the peasantry and the later urban working classes.
    So Methodism became their religion instead….and Catholics forget that Nonconformists suffered near equal persecution to that of Catholics.

    In 2013 you have the irony at Lambeth Conferences where traditional and now “native” colonial episcopates reject out of hand female ordination , blessing of divorces, the gay equality agenda etc etc.

    To my mind present day English Anglicanism is a like a giant ecclesial Baked Alaska…puncture it gently and it collapses.It is the Church by Law Established with 26 bishops by right in the Lords but in a nation of 63.7 million…how many does it actually represent?
    Disestablishment will probably loom as an issue in the next reign…we shall see.

  • John Dare

    Just looked at the jolly [and pointless] story about the Beeb and DID’s, and I wondered, how the ‘membership’ of various churches or secular society would stand if there was an annual membership fee.

    As ever you’re correct with the history bit BTW. Farmers in W Durham were methodists because the CofE was the landlord. Miners the same because the coal owner was CofE.

    Not too sure about your final two paras tho’ Rif. The church since 1945 is a veeery different beast to your description. And I get the impression that many religious see establishment as a real protection for them against the ‘big boys’ [such as the catholics]

    • John Dare

      Just googled Nosey Parker; many and mixed stories on this, and it begins to look like the bishop one is a 19th C. invention?

      • Rifleman819

        Yes-I did say a lot aabout the “alleged” origin of the phrase-but Matthew Parker’s activities were historically true and much to his chagrin none of his ventures buttressed his claim about Casnterbury being independent from Rome.

        And as far as Apostolic Succession is concerned…it is the circumstances of Parker’s own consecration as ABC that is the final historical rupture between the RC Church in England and the Church of England.

        There are various fascinating websites about how -in a very convoluted fashion-somemembers of the present CoE hierarchy still claim valid ordination through the Old Catholics-a sect that broke from Rome in 1870 after the First Vatican Council.

        I am not decrying the Anglican Church per se-it contains 1000s and 1000′s of wonderful and spiritual men and women …but just to make crystal clear that from 1559 it was and still is…not Catholic.

        There are those in the CoE who get very angry about this …yet seem to have a very different set of definitions of the word “Catholic” from that of Catholic Catholics, if that is how I can describe it.

        Thus at Leicester in the next few months…to be truthful the RC bishop of Nottingham will be trundled out to give a legitimacy to an Anglican service conducted by men (and women?) whom the RCC regards as ecclesiatical “civvies”-baptised Christian laypeople, with undoubted “ministry” in their ecclesial body and wearing for the most part copies of Catholic vestments.
        But Catholics they are not.
        And indeed the Evangelical wing of the CoE is very honest and proud about this-as is their right and privilege from their own standpoint.

        The legacy of the European Reformation cannot be airbrushed away by some sleight of hand and the “treson des clercs”-and the RC Church has spent much energy in fruitless attempts at unity.
        It can’t happen now -with women’s ordination. So let’s all move forward.

    • Rifleman819

      John ,
      Possibly…but if Establishment unravels …there will be interesting consequences for the monarchy.

  • John Dare

    Rif; don’t know if you’ve read this http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/lionunicorn.html , but if you haven’t buy a cheap copy sometime. Great fun.

  • John Dare

    Just noticed this:

    ‘There is no continuity between the Catholic Church of St Augustine of Canterbury, St Anselm, St Cuthbert, and Saints Thomas More and John Fisher, and the Church of England.’

    St Cuthbert, northumbrian, probable kin of the king, brought up in the celtic rite, easily trasfers to the roman rite [sounds very CofE to me]…:lol:

    • John Dare

      Is it just me, or are things generally just a little more relaxed and discursive round here at the moment?

    • Rifleman819

      John ,
      A lote of guff is talked about the Celtic Rite….but Irish missionaries came from and went to the Isles of Britain from Benedictine monasteries such as St.Gallen…there were differences in the dating of Easter and the style of tonsure but all was settled definitively at the Synod of Whitby in 664AD in favour of Rome.

      I once had a culture shock when taking some of my history pupils to Glastonbury…a party of visiting Americans were looking at some of the (rather tendentious)information boards around the site…and one of them contained stuff on Abbess Hilda-one blue-rinse matron turned knowingly to her chum and said “There Martha, I told you so …she was the leader of the Women’s Movement in the Choirch”.
      I was speechless for the rest of the day.

      • John Dare

        I love the Yanks; one special moment going from Newcastle to Durham on the train, and pulling into the station. Yankee man, ‘scuse me sooon, is this Durrrhaaam?’ :lol:

        • Rifleman819

          Agree,

          Infuriating…but endearing and idealist …though some by now some of them have realised that HRH Barry O’ Barma can’t walk on water.Talks the talk …but fails to walk the walk.

          Typo-lote …should have been load! Typing fast and thinking slower.

        • Ioannes

          JD, in 1971 when an undergraduate at Durham University I was accosted by an American tourist on Palace Green and asked for directions to the cathedral.

  • Rifleman819

    John ,

    Thanks for that – gosh, he writes well!

    And interesting aside-George Orwell is buried at Nuneham Courtenay churchyard in Oxfordshire-less than 100 feet from HH Asquith.

    But his writings drawn from the early period of WW2 …reflect a long -gone England. Politically incorrect though it may be to say so if Orwell were to stroll through , say, Handsworth in Birmingham…he would find it closer to the India he policed in the 1930s than anything remotely “English”-that England of wooden beer , warm cricket stumps…cucumber sandwiches, stiff upper lips, ladies cycling to Evensong …the England of Miss Marple perhaps…that England has disappeared.
    And it really will beinteresting to see if Richard Plantagenet’s reinterrment will include representatives of “faith communities(East Midlands Wiccans, perhaps?)…………one wonders what he would have made of that!

    • John Dare

      They’d both be agog, no doubt of it. The world changes, but stays the same.

    • Trisagion

      Sutton Courtney, actually. Other side of the river and about ten miles from Nuneham Courtney.

      • Rifleman819

        Trisagion
        You are quite right……………I knew it was a Courtney I had visited.Wrong one-mea culpa!

        But walking through the churchyard there I was astonished to see Asquith’s tomb as well-quite a remarkable record for a sleepy but lovely Oxfordshire village.

  • Rifleman819

    John ,
    Some truth there …but beware a tendency to Hinduism and creation cycles!

  • Ioannes

    I was of the opinion that Richard III be reinterred at the Dominican priory of Holy Cross, Leicester, according to the Dominican Rite which, since it predates Trent by three centuries, would have been in use in Richard’s day, and unlike the uses of Sarum and York is still celebrated. Any sense of antiquarianism would thus be avoided.

  • Rifleman819

    Ioannes,

    An elegant solution…and the Bp of Nottingham is an OP as well.
    But seemingly all overtaken by events.

    Everything to be enacted in the Church of Ss.Ecumen, Relativa,Fait Accomplitia.

  • Adrian

    Given King Richard’s unsavoury reputation, I am surprised that the Dean of Leicester is prepared to give him house-room in his cathedral. What will the inscription be – Hic iacet Ricardus Eboraciensis dux, regium principiumque Angliae carnufex?

  • Rifleman819

    Adrian ,
    I take you are not a Yorkist then?

  • Adrian

    Rifleman,
    Probably not. But even if you set aside all the accusations of pre-contract and illegitimacy, it is not at all clear-cut – on balance I go for descent via John of Gaunt, though I see the arguments for Edward of Langley.
    Further to the substantive question, Richard (‘dux’ or ‘rex’) presumably had a Catholic funeral, even if it did not correspond to the dignities of his estate. One scarcely needs two funerals – so does it strictly speaking matter (apart from treating them with respect) what is done with his remains or where they are put.
    What form of ceremony do you think would be appropriate if and when they dig Boudicca up from under platform 10 at King’s Cross – cue druids?

  • The recent successful application by the Plantagenet Alliance for a Judicial Review of the decision by the Ministry of Justice over King Richard’s reinterrment saw the Judge say that King Richard’s own wishes (as far as they can be ascertained)should be taken into consideration.

    Please all sign the new e-petition for a Roman Catholic service and burial for King Richard III

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54312

  • Eric Johnson

    My Fellow Catholics needn’t worry. If they bury him in an Anglican ceremony now, they will unearth his remains again in the future and give him a proper Roman Catholic burial once they come to their senses. I have no doubt that England will become Catholic again, maybe not in our lifetime but sometime in the future. Anglicans and Episcopalians are flocking back to the Catholic Church.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>