Quote:
Originally Posted by CRussel
Excuse me, but how is that different than today? Without getting into P&R territory, we seem to have one head of state systematically repealing and replacing a previous head of state -- all around the world. And this was hardly unheard of back then, either.
|
Which (if I understand correctly) is pretty much what is under discussion: is this just the all too familiar political expediency, or were the church involved as a separate player to the government.
Despite the wording of the Titulus Regius (which was only issued the next year, 1484,
after Richard III acted as if it was true), I find it difficult to see the church acting separately in this matter. Things do not seem quite the same as when Henry VIII was arguing with the Catholic church - with the traitorous/saintly (pick you preferred adjective) Thomas More intervening. Here, it seems to me, with at least one of Richard III and/or with Henry VII the church must have been looking the other way, or had no one willing to disagree with the king - which in those days especially would have been no small thing, especially with war-like figures such as these two.