That might be too much to ask. But if there's polyphony, let's hope it's not anachronistic.

But if there's polyphony, let's hope it's not anachronistic.

Mozart's Requiem, and a motet by Peter Maxwell Davies...

There may be another Requiem or Sung Office of the Dead in London.

Now why Sarum Rite? P.S. There was also a Rite of YORK, that would have been better known by our former King.

My Vote would be for a Requiem in the Dominican Rite, this Rite would also have been well known to the King. The Traditional form of this Mass including the Chants, has not suffered as many changes as the Tridentine Rite. The Sarum or York Rites are difficult as we may not have permission to use these Rites and we do not have a clear understanding of how they were celebrated.

Fr Simon Henry has a blog here, http://offerimustibidomine.blogspot.co.uk

N.B. I believe the Cardinal is also 'presiding' at a 'Requiem' Mass, of course this will be the N.O. Mass (a form of worship totally alien to the King).

The outpouring of genuine affection and respect for this sad monarch is a reminder to all of us, both 'over there' and 'over here', who love our royalty (though they often don't deserve it!) that very much of our history is woven with the vicissitudes of succession squabbles. Though some assert that he was a somewhat enlightened ruler for his age, we likely will never know how guilty or innocent Richard III was of the ugly crimes attributed to him. However, his recent and belated burial has brought one aspect quite forward in my mind, one which seems to have been rather overlooked. That is to say, the aspect of England's future after Bosworth: what if Richard had won a Yorkist victory? The Tudors would, then, have never been heard of other than as historical would-have-beens. No Tudors, no Henry the Bad. No caesaro-papist Church of England, no Elizabeth I. It is inevitable that history would have been quite different what with the absence of all the religious and political upheaval following Bosworth and the Tudor period, leaving no empowered protestantising party to wreak its havoc on a faith to which the English populace was devoted deeply. (Precisely because of its profoundly Catholic nature, this land of England was known as 'our Lady's dowery', and Walsingham was one of the most storied and visited of all Europe's Marian shrines.) No Tudor legacy, no Stuarts, no regicide and cromwellian inter-regnum, no Restoration. No coup d'etat by James II's impudent daughter and her Dutch husband, no Hanoverians, and!... no Victoria. Would England have become the great world hegemon that it did under rulers who may or may not have chosen the course of state power and aggrandisement which was the Tudor legacy? Well, these are my thoughts, and they bear on church music, too, because we likely would have seen a very different musical tradition passed on to us than the one we have: no Anglican chant, the English anthem would likely not have developed as it did; and the Anglican liturgical patrimony which we have today would, doubtless, be a very different one. Perhaps (and perhaps not) we would continue to see the Sarum use as it continued as a venerable rite following Trent. Absent the very best fruits of the Oxford movement, would there even be what we know in our time as an Anglican liturgical patrimony: no Caroline divines, none of the many influences that have flowered in the best of this partrimony, no BCP to put to shame every other attempt (so far) at an hieratic Anglophone vernacular, and no evensong. Too, J.H. Newman would have been a very different person. How would the choral tradition of the cathedrals, the likes of which are unknown anywhere else, have fared? Would there be anything distinguishable from today's ordinary English Catholicism... which hardly is a distinguished patrimonial practicum in any liturgical sense. (On the other hand, what other European Catholicism has the likes of music and liturgy as that at Westminster Cathedral or the Oratory?: None. Not even the Vatican!) Second guessing history is an exercise in positing what we really cannot know, but it is tempting to posit, just the same.

Salieri: can't you just see Henry as a monk! Pity his poor brethren.
You are right, though: an Arthurian England, if it had resulted in successions less chaotic and religiously charged than those of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, most likely would have resulted in many of the same what ifs as those I mused over above.

Too, it is a sad reality that the universities, both of them, and the lawyer classes as well, were at that time hotbeds of Protestant and Lutheran sentiment. What their influence on society would have been absent royal empowerment for dynastic concerns we cannot know.

A very interesting hypothesis, Salieri -
Ah yes! So many 'might have beens', but only one 'was'.
It's sort of like those who relive Waterloo and such: 'if only, oh, if only....'.