Posted on 08/06/2013 3:58:20 PM PDT by marshmallow
“King named or appointed bishops, pending Papal approval.”
Not after the investiture crisis. The pope elevated priests to bishops. His elevation to archbishop was improper. The pope never elevated Cranmore.
Cranmore’s elevation did not come from the Pope, and hence he was not part of the apostolic succession. Thus, Cranmore and all of his ecclesiastical actions are invalid, then as now.
As for your lie that the bishops all became Anglican:
Stokesly (executed 1539)
Longland (died, natural causes 1547)
Gardiner (died, natural causes 1555)
All remained Catholic.
So says Henry VII, the last man to see the children alive, after he defeated Richard at Bosworth. Oddly enough, the usurper claims Richard killed the children.
“Considering the Anglicans are an extention of the Catholic Church.”
They are not. They are protestants, just like the Lutherans et al.
I’m sorry, your ‘site’ isn’t a reliable source. Cranmore was never elevated to bishop by the Pope and is thus outside of the apostolic succession.
The most “Catholic” of the Protestants.
BTW, did not Pope Benedict Emeritus create a special “rite” for those who Anglican?
If you can kindly excuse, I am fighting a late summer cold.
Some of the oldest versions of the story specify that the two boys were killed and buried under some stairs. But they also say that the bodies were then moved to another location and reburied. In 1674, some bones were found under a stairway in the White Tower and it was assumed these were the princes. The bones were put into an urn and placed in Westminster Abbey. In 1933 these bones were examined. Many bones were missing and they were mixed with animal bones. Jawbones were consistent with the ages of the princes. The bones were returned to the urn and have not been examined since.
In 1798, workmen accidentally broke into a tomb and found two unmarked coffins, but the tomb itself had the names of two of Edward IV's other children, who had died of natural causes during his reign. In the 1990s, there was an effort to convince the queen to allow these coffins to be opened and examined, but she didn't grant the request.
Which usurper are you talking about? Henry VII or Richard the III?
The claim that Henry VII killed the children is a weak one. They’d been missing for two years by the time he took the throne and would have had the opportunity to murder them. Meanwhile, it was common gossip that Richard had had them killed, gossip that fueled his enemies and that he could have ended in an instant by simply presenting the princes in public.
And who was prompting that gossip? The same usurper. Like I said, Henry’s claim that Richard killed them was awfully politically convenient. In any case, he was the last to see them alive, so he would know, right?
Henry VII.
Richard was only acclaimed King after evidence was found that his brother Edward (who was poisoned, probably by the Tudors), that he had been married to another woman. Between 1483 and 1485, something like 7 or 8 Yorkists died. Now, someone might blame a Yorkist, but that doesn’t make much sense.
Margaret Beaufort had the means and the desire to engage in all these intrigues between this two year period. It was only after Tewksbury that the plan would have emerged, when Henry VII was fourteen.
Where are you getting that Henry was the last to see the princes alive? He was in France from 1471 until he landed with his army in 1485. The princes hadn’t been seen in two years at that point.
According to them maybe, not Catholics.When your church blesses sodomy, there is not much in common.
“Pope Benedict Emeritus create a special “rite” for those who Anglican?”
No, he created a special rite for Catholic converts from the Anglican church.
He claimed this when he put out the official statement in 1485 saying that Richard killed the princes.
Either his statement was a lie then, or he lied about it being Richard. After Richard took the throne, the deal was struck between the Woodvilles and Beauforts to marry Henry VII to Elizabeth of York. But, in order for that to have any merit - the princes had to die.
What did Richard gain by their deaths? He was already king.
It doesn't make any sense at all that Henry would claim to have seen the princes alive, and a year before he set foot in England the French ambassador was reporting back that it was well-known that Richard had the boys killed.
“well-known that Richard had the boys killed.”
By whom?
The only theory that actually makes sense is that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham killed them (whom Richard had executed) on orders of Henry Tudor and the Beauforts. Stafford attempted to put Henry VII on the throne, and he had access to the tower.
Well, certainly by the French ambassador.
The only theory that actually makes sense is that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham killed them (whom Richard had executed)
And it makes no sense at all that Richard ordered them killed to rid himself of a rallying point for his opposition? The conspirators in the 1483 Rebellion (for which Buckingham was executed) started off to put Prince Edward on the throne, but when it became common knowledge that he and his brother were already dead, they switched their allegiance to Henry.
Locutus Breckinridge, causa finita.
you can read the wikipeda entry for his reputation which talks about the pros and cons -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England
essentially, remember that the Tudors did use propaganda against him. Perhaps he wasn't a saintly one, but he was not as bad as the Shakespearean character
“And it makes no sense at all that Richard ordered them killed to rid himself of a rallying point”
The princes weren’t a rallying point for the Lancastrians. They were York princes. They were an obstacle.
“they switched their allegiance to Henry”
The only document pre 1485 states that Buckingham was responsible for the death of the princes of the tower. He was also guard of the Tower while the brothers were held. His lineage was also senior if, and only if the brothers died.
The French Ambassador was where Henry was in exile. One guess why he would side with Henry. ;)
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.