U
Upgrade25
Guest
Weird title, I know. But isn’t the argument that the state needed heretics dead for the sake of order equally applicable to the English Persecutions?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fbl9
Guest
What are you looking for with this thread?Weird title, I know. But isn’t the argument that the state needed heretics dead for the sake of order equally applicable to the English Persecutions?
i have never heard of such hunters could you please elaborate on that.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Essentially, yes. It is the same phenomenon. The decision of Pius V to excommunicate Elizabeth I and to release her Catholic subjects from loyalty to her certainly engendered a very defensive posture from her to protect her throne.Weird title, I know. But isn’t the argument that the state needed heretics dead for the sake of order equally applicable to the English Persecutions?
Pius V and his confrontation with Queen Elizabeth I was in a very different era from Gregory VII and his first confrontation with Emperor Henry IV.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Elizabeth I, Edward IV, and Henry VIII all killed Catholics for one major reason:
Money.
Yes, Henry VIII wanted desperately to ditch Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. But having an excuse to confiscate Church property and the property of defiant Catholic lords or merchants – that was the real appeal of making himself head of England’s Church.
The problem was that the more he confiscated, the more he had to give to his supporters. And if you destroy a lot of that property or business while it’s being confiscated, and if you scatter or kill the people who did the work, that property is not going to bring in money for a long time afterward. So the more he stole, the more Henry VIII got deeper into debt. (His agents also destroyed an experimental Cistercian monastery that was busy inventing new technologies for steel, thus delaying the industrial revolution for centuries and depriving himself of big revenues for England. Crime does not pay.)
In the process, he also destroyed most of England’s hospitals, grammar schools, colleges and universities, provisions for the old and handicapped, and so on. The only charitable organizations and social help that was allowed to survive were those groups that had connections to powerful lords favored by the king. Meanwhile, any monks and nuns who weren’t killed, and anybody being helped by the monks and nuns, were thrown out onto the roads to be homeless, or had to find some profession where they wouldn’t be visible as outlawed monks and nuns.
Edward IV’s government did much the same cycle of destruction.
Queen Mary and her government tried to stop this merry-go-round. Even though there were grave injustices that she had to let alone, her government mostly went by the idea that “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” not because it was right but because the people and lands had already been disrupted so much. Mary’s reign was spent mostly on trying to heal all the damage that her dad had done.
And then Elizabeth came along, claiming that she was going to be fair to everyone of every religion. That lasted about six months. Long before the pope made any pronouncements whatsoever, she was employing people to go forth and confiscate, just like her dad. (Except her government ministers employed Topcliffe the psychopath, and gave him his own murder-house to play with. Even Henry VIII’s employees didn’t do that.) The main difference was that Elizabeth was slightly better at encouraging her nation’s economy at the same time she was plundering it. She also employed privateering and economic warfare against the other nations of Europe, as with the many terroristic expeditions of Sir Francis Drake.
Basically, England was the North Korea of late medieval Europe - a rogue nation.
Money.
Yes, Henry VIII wanted desperately to ditch Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. But having an excuse to confiscate Church property and the property of defiant Catholic lords or merchants – that was the real appeal of making himself head of England’s Church.
The problem was that the more he confiscated, the more he had to give to his supporters. And if you destroy a lot of that property or business while it’s being confiscated, and if you scatter or kill the people who did the work, that property is not going to bring in money for a long time afterward. So the more he stole, the more Henry VIII got deeper into debt. (His agents also destroyed an experimental Cistercian monastery that was busy inventing new technologies for steel, thus delaying the industrial revolution for centuries and depriving himself of big revenues for England. Crime does not pay.)
In the process, he also destroyed most of England’s hospitals, grammar schools, colleges and universities, provisions for the old and handicapped, and so on. The only charitable organizations and social help that was allowed to survive were those groups that had connections to powerful lords favored by the king. Meanwhile, any monks and nuns who weren’t killed, and anybody being helped by the monks and nuns, were thrown out onto the roads to be homeless, or had to find some profession where they wouldn’t be visible as outlawed monks and nuns.
Edward IV’s government did much the same cycle of destruction.
Queen Mary and her government tried to stop this merry-go-round. Even though there were grave injustices that she had to let alone, her government mostly went by the idea that “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” not because it was right but because the people and lands had already been disrupted so much. Mary’s reign was spent mostly on trying to heal all the damage that her dad had done.
And then Elizabeth came along, claiming that she was going to be fair to everyone of every religion. That lasted about six months. Long before the pope made any pronouncements whatsoever, she was employing people to go forth and confiscate, just like her dad. (Except her government ministers employed Topcliffe the psychopath, and gave him his own murder-house to play with. Even Henry VIII’s employees didn’t do that.) The main difference was that Elizabeth was slightly better at encouraging her nation’s economy at the same time she was plundering it. She also employed privateering and economic warfare against the other nations of Europe, as with the many terroristic expeditions of Sir Francis Drake.
Basically, England was the North Korea of late medieval Europe - a rogue nation.
U
Upgrade25
Guest
Then they shouldn’t have started to kill Catholics. Now the Church has the English martyrs.Essentially, yes. It is the same phenomenon. The decision of Pius V to excommunicate Elizabeth I and to release her Catholic subjects from loyalty to her certainly engendered a very defensive posture from her to protect her throne.
Pius V and his confrontation with Queen Elizabeth I was in a very different era from Gregory VII and his first confrontation with Emperor Henry IV.
R
Rosebud77
Guest
And then there was Cromwell, who left his mark on Catholic Ireland in so many ruined abbeys etc.
I have lived near so many "priest caves"and mass rocks; there is one on the lane here
I have lived near so many "priest caves"and mass rocks; there is one on the lane here
- Status
- Not open for further replies.