Can I use "would" to replace all the "should" here?(in subordinate clauses)

It's astonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.

I was shocked that she shouldn't have invited Helen.

I'm sorry you should think I did it on purpose.

Do you think it's normal that the child should be so tired?

It was natural that they should want him to go to a good school.

May I ask if I can replace all the "should" with "would"?

Thank you for your answer.

Yes, but in Practical English Usage should (4):in subordinate clauses the book says:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2 reactions 

Should is also used in subordinate clauses after words expressing personal judgements and reactions, especially to facts which are already known or have already been mentioned.(This use, too, is more common in British than American English.)

It's astonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.

I was shocked that she shouldn't have invited Helen.

I'm sorry you should think I did it on purpose.

Do you think it's normal that the child should be so tired?

In American English, would is usual in this kind of case.

It was natural that they would want him to go to a good school. (GB...that they should...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

So that's the book says. But I'm doubtful that if we could really change all the "should" with "would", because I find some of them would be strange. So I came here to look for some opinion.

What do you think? Is the book really correct? Thanks again.

 Adjectives and verbs usage with should

 http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/24690-adjectives-verbs-usage-should.html

one of the posters being our Mr. Pedantic (BrE) 

CalifJim

<>It's astonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.  would also possible; virtually same meaning.

I was shocked that she shouldn't have invited Helen.  wouldn't seems unnatural, but almost possible.

I'm sorry you should think I did it on purpose.  would also possible, but the meaning is slightly different.

Do you think it's normal that the child should be so tired?  would possible, but slightly different meaning.

It was natural that they should want him to go to a good school.  would also possible; virtually same meaning.

 These are my reactions as a speaker of AmE.

The slight differences in meaning are impossible for me to characterize.  would just seems slightly more definite to me.  Sorry I can't be more specific.

CJ 

My readings are based on a remark a BrE speaker made to me in another forum some time ago (not on these examples). He said that in such contexts, should shows an element of chance, of happening, in comparison with would.

E.g.:

It's astonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you. My reading: it's astonishing that she happened to say that to you, that those words flew out of her mouth

It's astonishing that she would say that sort of thing to you. My reading: it's astonishing that she was willing to say that to you, that she put/placed purpose in saying that to you

Anonymous

As a speaker of British English, I'd say those phrases are all high-register / old fashioned.  Very few people speak like that and hardly anyone would write like that any more.

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth22

--

But it was interesting that Gibbs, of  all people, should have been the one to notice it.

Jonathan Coe, The Rotters'  Club,  p. 40

-----