Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Oh yes, he was kept on the king list, as it were, by the Tudors, and Henry VIII's son was therefore called Edward VI.
But in arguing that Richard "stole the throne" from Edward V, I think it is well to remember the enormous power of the church back then. After all, Henry VIII couldn't get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and had to break away from Rome in order to be able to marry Anne Boleyn.
So the fact that the church agreed with and was party to Titulus Regius, and the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned Richard king cannot be brushed aside as something he made them do. The setting aside of Edward was not done lightly, or just because Richard demanded it.
|
You make a great point in terms of the power of the church. And yes, it absolutely forbid divorce. But the church and state had separate mandates and distinct authorities. The Titulus Regius was within Parliament’s domain. The consent of the church wasn’t necessary for the legislation, as it would be for a divorce.
I think it’s shaky to build a case for Richard on the basis of an unimpeachable church. If the church was so independent and wouldn’t just go along with Richard’s demands, why did it remain silent and look the other way for decades while Edward IV was bigamous? Bigamy should have been as morally offensive as divorce to trustworthy Bishops.
If instead, the church was morally offended by Edward’s bigamy, but silent because of their fear of reprisal, then it’s reasonable to assume they went along with Richard’s demand out of fear as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
The boys were the king and the heir before Titulus Regius, bastards after it, and then the dead king and the dead heir when Titulus Regius was repealed.
|
Where was the justice and due process? No evidence was given. And since both parties were dead, they were denied an opportunity to refute the allegation. Parliament seemed to work quite differently than a court.