Richard the Third

[secret squirrel]

To be fair to you, you did say a better claim than HMQ, not that he was a genuine 'pretender' which is how I first read it, sorry.
Where things go somewhat awry (for him and others, presumably) is all that 1688 Glorious Revolution stuff....

I have heard it said that some of the really old noble families still have an inner 'glow' where their pedigrees go back "father / son" beyond the reigns of Germans and Dutch, the Scots (Stuarts) and the Welsh (Tudors) to the Plantagenets and Normans, even.

But I wager none of them really wants the top job, and neither does the Canadian - or so he says...

[jean]

... an interesting question.

I would have thought that - unlike baptism, which one can only have once - there would not be any theological objections to any number of Requiem Masses being celebrated in memory of a dead person, so even assuming the monks gave him a decent burial we can always do it all over again.

That's true.

More particularly, the Requiem Mass isn't a burial rite, like the BCP Order for the Burial of the Dead, it's a Mass offered for the soul of the dead person, and as such can be repeated as often as you like without the person being reburied at all.

The chantry chapels in medieval churches were endowed by wealthy families so that prayers could be offered there for the repose of their souls for ever.

For the Reformers, such prayers were quite superfluous, because the dead went straight to Heaven (or Hell) and did not hang around in Purgatory waiting for their friends and relations to pray that they might be granted rest.

[Pabmusic]

This Canadian carpenter chap being directly descended from Edward IV and Richard III's sister would seem to have a much better claim to the throne than Liz.

No. The 1701 Act of Settlement makes it clear that the only people who can be monarchs are Protestant descendants of Sofia, Electress of Hanover (I can't find the posts, but we've covered this already). That's the constitutional position, however strong a claim the descendant of any earlier monarch might have.

...Where things go somewhat awry (for him and others, presumably) is all that 1688 Glorious Revolution stuff....

Precisely.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

To be fair to you, you did say a better claim than HMQ, not that he was a genuine 'pretender' which is how I first read it, sorry.
Where things go somewhat awry (for him and others, presumably) is all that 1688 Glorious Revolution stuff....

I have heard it said that some of the really old noble families still have an inner 'glow' where their pedigrees go back "father / son" beyond the reigns of Germans and Dutch, the Scots (Stuarts) and the Welsh (Tudors) to the Plantagenets and Normans, even.

But I wager none of them really wants the top job, and neither does the Canadian - or so he says...

Michael Abney-Hastings, an Australian republican also has a greater claim on the throne.

[Barbirollians]

No. The 1701 Act of Settlement makes it clear that the only people who can be monarchs are Protestant descendants of Sofia, Electress of Hanover (I can't find the posts, but we've covered this already). That's the constitutional position, however strong a claim the descendant of any earlier monarch might have.



Precisely.

My original post was facetious but Pabs are you sure you have the contents of the Act verbatim (though I imagine a contender with an earlier claim might suggest that a usurper's Parliament cannot deprive him of his birthright ) - Queen Anne didn't die until 1714 and accordingly any children of hers that had survived ( of course they all pre-deceased her ) would have succeeded not any heirs of Sofia .

Mr Abney-Hastings died last June so his son now would claim to be entitled to succeed through the Duke of Clarence line . I doubt he would toast his birth right in madeira though

[Pabmusic]

My original post was facetious but Pabs are you sure you have the contents of the Act verbatim (though I imagine a contender with an earlier claim might suggest that a usurper's Parliament cannot deprive him of his birthright ) - Queen Anne didn't die until 1714 and accordingly any children of hers that had survived ( of course they all pre-deceased her ) would have succeeded not any heirs of Sofia...

Sorry, picking up subtleties was never my strong point.

I'm pretty sure that the 1701 Act says something like "in the absence of legitimate heirs from Anne or William III". [Edit - yes it does, see below] I think it was partly Anne's terrible luck in having all her children die that prompted the Act of Settlement.

Here's something about the Act of Settlement:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/maryiiwilliamiiiandtheactofsettlement/theactofsettlement.aspx

And here's the relevant passage:

Therefore for a further provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, we Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, do beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted and declared, and be it enacted and declared by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the most excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory, be and is hereby declared to be the next in succession, in the Protestant line, to the imperial Crown and dignity of the said Realms of England, France, and Ireland, with the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, after His Majesty, and the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively: and that from and after the deceases of His said Majesty, our now sovereign lord, and of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and for default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty respectively, the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, with the royal state and dignity of the said Realms, and all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities, to the same belonging and appertaining, shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants: and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, shall and will in the name of all the people of this Realm, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities: and do faithfully promise, that after the deceases of His Majesty, and Her Royal Highness, and the failure of the heirs of their respective bodies, to stand to, maintain, and defend the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants, according to the limitation and succession of the Crown in this act specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

As to contenders, you succinctly state the argument used by both the Old Pretender in 1715 (-ish) and the Young Pretender in 1745. The counter-argument is that the monarch now clearly reigns only at the invitation of Parliament, so there's no 'right' except what Parliament allows anyway.

[Petrushka]

Some fascinating posts from Jean.

It will be most interesting to see what Leicester Cathedral choose to do.

[Pabmusic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21401200

You heard it here first (post 230):

The only people who have identical DNA are clones (we call them identical twins)...

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9861296/Richard-III-are-you-related-to-the-dead-king.html

[cincinnatus]

Hello, Pabmusic. This is a response to your detailed quote from the Act of Settlement in message 381. The Act is even more restrictive than insisting that the monarch must be a Protestant - the Bill of Rights 1689 had done that. Although Mary II had been an Anglican, William III wasn't and the High Anglican Tories in the House of Commons were determined this should not happen again. Consequently a later clause in the Act says:-
'That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established.'
The present Queen cannot be e.g. a Methodist, Baptist or Quaker.

[Pabmusic]

Hello, Pabmusic. This is a response to your detailed quote from the Act of Settlement in message 381. The Act is even more restrictive than insisting that the monarch must be a Protestant - the Bill of Rights 1689 had done that. Although Mary II had been an Anglican, William III wasn't and the High Anglican Tories in the House of Commons were determined this should not happen again. Consequently a later clause in the Act says:-
'That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established.'
The present Queen cannot be e.g. a Methodist, Baptist or Quaker.

Very interesting - thanks.

[jean]

I would have thought that - unlike baptism, which one can only have once - there would not be any theological objections to any number of Requiem Masses being celebrated in memory of a dead person, so even assuming the monks gave him a decent burial we can always do it all over again.

That's true...

But apparently it isn't, quite, since according to Mr Pee's link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...dead-king.html

"David Monteith, Leicester Cathedral Canon Chancellor, said the remains would be reinterred early next year in a Christian-led but ecumenical service.

He said that because it would have been “unheard of” for the king not to have received a formal burial at the time, he could not be buried again and so it would be a service of remembrance."

But I did go on to say

...the Requiem Mass isn't a burial rite, like the BCP Order for the Burial of the Dead, it's a Mass offered for the soul of the dead person, and as such can be repeated as often as you like without the person being reburied at all...

So we could still have a Requiem, though the good Canon Chancellor might not think that ecumenical enough.

I'll have to speak to him about it.

[BBMmk2]

That makes sense Jean, A Service of Remembrance. then what would thje prayers be? Surely not modern day prayers be suitable?

[Mr Pee]

Mark Rylance at the final performance of Richard III last night at the Apollo:-

[jean]

...So we could still have a Requiem, though the good Canon Chancellor might not think that ecumenical enough.

I'll have to speak to him about it.

And so I sent them a summary of the ideas and information I posted here.

I got the following 'generic response':

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for being in touch with us following the announcement that the human remains found on
the site of the former Greyfriars within the parish of St Martin Leicester are those of King Richard III.
The City Mayor and the Vice Chancellor as the relevant legal parties have requested that Leicester
Cathedral now take steps to inter these remains in order to enact the requirements of the licence
issued by the Ministry of Justice which permitted the exhumation of these remains. Burying King
Richard III in Leicester Cathedral conforms to the best archaeological practice and conforms to the
precedence set elsewhere within our national Church and State story.

The Bishop of Leicester with the Cathedral Chapter have carefully considered this request and are
beginning to plan how this might happen. We will begin to plan an appropriate location and design
for a permanent memorial to King Richard which will provide honour and dignity, and allow for the
wider use of the Cathedral as a place of daily prayer and the place which gathers the diocese and
wider community on major occasions. We will also begin to plan the liturgy which will take a Church
of England character but which will draw on our rich Christian heritage. It will not technically be a
funeral but an interment and memorial. We will plan to involve ecumenical guests and to invite
representatives from all the faiths in Leicester.

We have had a large volume of correspondence and are sorry that we are unable to reply
individually to the letters and emails received. We would however, like to confirm that all
correspondence has been read and considered. Details will be posted on both our Cathedral and
Diocesan websites as the plans emerge.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester & Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean


along with a covering email, which said


Dear Jean,

Thank you for your email which provides very interesting reading. Please see the
attached letter from the Bishop of Leicester and Acting Dean of the Cathedral
and be assured that your email will be passed on for consultation and
consideration.

Once again with grateful thanks for taking the time to write to the cathedral
with such detailed information.

Kind regards

Julia