Skip to comments.Should Richard III Receive a Catholic Burial?
Posted on 02/06/2013 4:11:39 AM PST by NYer
You thought there couldnt be a law and religion angle to todays news—fascinating for us history nerds—that archaeologists have discovered the mortal remains of Richard III beneath a parking lot in Leicester? Think again. Plans are underway to re-inter the bones in the citys Anglican Cathedral. Not so fast, say some: the hunchback king wasnt a Protestant, but a Catholic, and he requires a Catholic burial. In fact, as Shakespeare fans know, Richard died at Bosworth Field (A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!), defending his throne from Henry Tudor. Henry went on to reign as Henry VII; his son, Henry VIII, broke with Rome. As The Tablets blog argued this morning, Had Richard prevailed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, there would have been no Henry VII, therefore no Henry VIII and no Reformation. England today might still be a Catholic country. Think of it: no Reformation, no Established Church, no Archbishop Laud, no Puritans, no Great Migration no Massachusetts! and no Establishment Clause. Surely theres a law review article in there somewhere.
Leicester Cathedral seems to know its facing a sensitive situation. A Catholic priest is keeping watch over Richards remains (as is an Anglican, I believe), and the cathedral is planning a multifaith burial ceremony. Personally, Im not sure why English Catholics are so keen to claim Richard, anyway. They must be forgetting the nephews in the Tower.
Well it would be a nice gesture, esp so at the critical time for western civilization, for the Anglicans to make some inquiries to Rome.
The base of the skull shows the larger of two potentially fatal injuries. This shows clearly how a section of the skull had been sliced off.
he complete skeleton showing the curve of the spine. Supporters of the infamous king, including members of the Richard III Society, hoped the discovery would force academics to rewrite history, which they say has been tainted by exaggerations and false claims.
Many additional photos at above source.
From what I’ve been reading, the plan is to give him a Catholic mass at his reinternment.
But this article is kinda dumb. Richard was NOT a hunchback (he had scoliosis) and there is no evidence that he murdered his nephews. He actually was a brilliant administrator in the North as the Duke of Gloucester and a forward-thinking King. And pretty damned good-looking, too!
What could have not been...
Really. I grew up there. ‘Twas not a pleasant experience, lets just say. So “Imagine no Massachusetts?” Um, okay!
Funny, from the image in the stained glass he really resembles me (other than that I am female). I even have scoliosis and am of British ancestry (and Catholic, although a convert). Things that make you go hmmm....
Dick doesn’t care. He’s dead.
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
That passage always confuses me a little. I thought the Jewish tradition required the dead to be buried PDQ after death. What was this guy doing out gallivanting around town? Shouldn’t he have been sitting shiva or something?
But it's obviously an anachronism to pretend he was an Anglican. Maybe it will cause at least a few people in the UK to take an objective look at the government-imposed religious revolution that swept their country in the 16th Century, as well as an objective look at the traditional Christianity of England that it swept away ... a Christianity that looked a lot more like that of the local TLM parish than it did that of the CofE.
Yeah, at a high level I sort of take it as instruction to care about bringing the Good News to the living more than about taking care of dead bodies, which are just so much rotting meat once the person leaves what Paul calls your “tent”.
If Richard is to get a religious funeral, it would be fitting that he receive a Catholic one.
What would qualify as evidence?
The life of surplus princes were always precarious.
The "body is just rotting meat, the soul is all that counts" idea is Greek Platonism, not Christianity.
I’ve never heard that Henry VII paid for his funeral mass. I know he was buried with haste by the Grey Friars in a very shallow grave - as if they were concerned Henry was going to come after THEM. Several years later, the notoriously thrifty Henry coughed up about 50 pounds to put a tombstone over his grave. Eventually, that tombstone ended up in the poet Robert Herrick’s garden. The garden eventually become the infamous car park!
Whenever our Lord spoke of the “dead” he was speaking of those that were dead spiritually. This why He had to clarify to the Apostles what he meant by Lazarus was sleeping. Let the dead burying the dead has nothing to do with not giving anyone a proper burial. That is a corporal work of mercy.
Well, everyone forgets (or never knew) that there was a third heir to the throne who came before Richard: his older brother George’s young son, Edward. He lived with Richard’s family in Yorkshire and was eventually murdered by...Henry VII.
Then why was Christ buried with great care by his Mother, joseph of Aramethea, Mary Magdelene, and St. John in accordance with Jewish Law especially if Christ showed us the way?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.