Genealogy Forum UK

peterd wrote:Think the term catholic means universal ? But richard was a catholic of tbe church of rome ie a RC so there is a difference will have to see how the establisment deals with it

I was always brought up that catholic and roman catholic aren't the same thing!

They're not Snoops, I was bought up as Anglo Catholic

snoopysue wrote:

peterd wrote:Think the term catholic means universal ? But richard was a catholic of tbe church of rome ie a RC so there is a difference will have to see how the establisment deals with it

I was always brought up that catholic and roman catholic aren't the same thing!

the way i was taught as school if i remember right is catholic church is a collection of faiths that have simular beliefs to the roman catholics but not exactly that of rome (ie the Pope)

as far as i know the king of england before and including henry the 8 till he fell out with rome were roman catholics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:R ... c_monarchs

You are right Pete about Henry V111.......and he soon let them know who was boss!!!!!!!
Mike.

peterd wrote:

snoopysue wrote:

peterd wrote:Think the term catholic means universal ? But richard was a catholic of tbe church of rome ie a RC so there is a difference will have to see how the establisment deals with it

I was always brought up that catholic and roman catholic aren't the same thing!

the way i was taught as school if i remember right is catholic church is a collection of faiths that have simular beliefs to the roman catholics but not exactly that of rome (ie the Pope)

as far as i know the king of england before and including henry the 8 till he fell out with rome were roman catholics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:R ... c_monarchs

you are correct , Henry VIII was a devout Roman catholic.Till he met Ann Boleyn. If anyone knows the whereabouts of her body ,i would like to know . Last i heard she has been put in a arrow box and buried in the tower

I know you are all
probably fed up of this subject by now ,but I thought some of you might like to read this ,and it does answer a few questions.

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/21924 ... more-21924

mikleed wrote:Mallosa / Margaret and Dudleytaylor.
Well ! after all these posts I think I feel a prat.... please do not take it serious I realise I can be a bit dogmatic in my views.
sorry Mallosa for using my sciatica as an excuse did not mean to be rude to you at all.
thank you Margaret for your sympathy. this forum as I said is a very friendly one. I think finding Richards body has become very sensative to some people
Catholic and Church of England.

Only one thing I think is Richard was buried at Greyfriars for some reason? that's why I say leave him in Leicestershire where he fought the Battle with Henry.
my spelling gives away my age!!!
Mike

Mike, I didn't take offence at all in fact I thought your comment was rather funny! I understand you were trying to get your point across but I also felt I had to voice my opinion.
Hope you didn't think I was laffing at your problem with sciatica?

I didn't find it funny at all. I didn't understand what I had written could upset him so much . Now looking at what was written it seems I made him angry because i did not agree that Richard should stay in Leicestershire,and that the monastery i referred too, i did not name as Grey Friers ( which i did not know ) . I got very upset by it all,and I must admit that I was very near to tears when I asked him to leave me alone. If my husband had realised what was going on I am sure he would have taken my computer from me ,and I would not be on here tonight,But I have kept it from him ,and he thinks I am upset about my back Which is quite painful ,and that is not an excuse.

Come on DT you don't have to worry about Micheal he's a good lad.He likes to shout a lot but he doesn't mean it.
He likes 1950's jazz singers,as i do,and he likes to dress up in tights and fire his bow and arrows. Only kidding Micheal.
DT don't take it all to heart.
I did think San was a bit near the knuckle though.It's no laughing matter sciatica you know!!

dudleytaylor wrote:I also did the Tudors at school .Later I took a great interest in their life and times. Reading as much as I could about them , ( not Novels) .I have nothing against novels but I wanted to learn from Historians . Henry VIII was my favourite of the Tudors.

There are many historians through the years whose research has been discredited, sometimes on the grounds of their own personal bias - look at the holocaust deniers. A novelist who researches their book thoroughly but then decides to pick out particular aspects of that research and use that to frame and drive the story they wish to tell might well be considered to have more integrity than historians who present a view of times past warped by their own prejudices and the times in which they live. At least with a novel we know that the information we receive is bent to suit the story, without much more research we cannot say the same about historians.

Margarett wrote: Doesn't "catholic" in the Nicene Creed mean world-wide, rather than "Catholic" as in of the Catholic Church? My goodness this discussion is getting deep! If my Dad was still alive he would soon clear that one up!!!

I think that catholic means the same in both cases, it's just that Roman catholic means one accepts the jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome rather than from anywhere else.

Popes were a major factor in the political upheavals of Europe with different factions getting their own man installed in the position and bringing pressure on the incumbent (on at least one occasion kidnapping him) through all the ways that those who seek power will do on those who have influence.

Don't forget that Henry VIII had received the title Fidei Defensor from the Pope for his attack on the Protestant Reformation. When Henry wanted to get rid of Catharine of Aragon because she failed to provide him with an heir she and her family (Spanish) brought much pressure on the Pope to prevent the divorce (basically her nephew was The Holy Roman Emperor) http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/. The English political classes then came up with the idea of denying the legitimacy of the Pope and transferring English allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury who granted the divorce (it's like Britain not liking the decisions of the EU so deciding to repatriate powers from Brussels to London whilst still remaining a part of Europe). Apart from this change of allegiance the religion remained almost exactly the same, indeed Henry demanded that this should be so, and so the Anglican Church was born.

Rob wrote:Come on DT you don't have to worry about Micheal he's a good lad.He likes to shout a lot but he doesn't mean it.
He likes 1950's jazz singers,as i do,and he likes to dress up in tights and fire his bow and arrows. Only kidding Micheal.
DT don't take it all to heart.
I did think San was a bit near the knuckle though.It's no laughing matter sciatica you know!!

I will take on board what you say Rob.I will try not to take it all to heart.I am a very quiet person ,it takes alot for me to join in the conversations,I do not have much experience chatting to people ,but I will try not to take it personally.

The thing is not to take the hump!

SRD wrote:

dudleytaylor wrote:I also did the Tudors at school .Later I took a great interest in their life and times. Reading as much as I could about them , ( not Novels) .I have nothing against novels but I wanted to learn from Historians . Henry VIII was my favourite of the Tudors.

There are many historians through the years whose research has been discredited, sometimes on the grounds of their own personal bias - look at the holocaust deniers. A novelist who researches their book thoroughly but then decides to pick out particular aspects of that research and use that to frame and drive the story they wish to tell might well be considered to have more integrity than historians who present a view of times past warped by their own prejudices and the times in which they live. At least with a novel we know that the information we receive is bent to suit the story, without much more research we cannot say the same about historians.

I do read novels , its just that with some novelist on the same subject , give their interpretation ,and they are different . I turn to history books for information which I hope is correct. Which they have taken from extracts from original documents. I do enjoy novels ,and films. ie A Man for All Seasons , the BBC production of Henry VIII and his wives with Keith Michell ( best Henry I have seen),Ann of A Thousand Days and many more. I do understand what you are saying

Northern Lass wrote:The thing is not to take the hump!

I know.I wish I were more like you NL