SSPX

[Cecil_Corn]

I thought per the Vatican press office we wouldn’t hear anything new till mid-May?

Rome is not in much of a hurry to report on this. My guess is still that we will hear something between today and Wed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[severus68]

“Bloody Mary” is a point of view. If I were at the receiving end, I would probably have a few choice words for her too. It does not mean that these words adequately define her. They adequately define how the Protestants felt about her.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, it was the name given to her by the Protestants after she brought back the anti heresy laws and burnt a number at the stake. I think of her as a sad figure, first rejected by her father and married to a man who did not love her. She loved her sister but become suspicious of her. Her half sister Elizabeth was stronger in many ways. What is interesting is that the remains of both Mary and Elizabeth are in one tomb with this inscription (in Latin):

“Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection.”

 

[severus68]

Using the title “Bloody Mary” is already Protestant versus Catholic thing. It is merely Protestant propaganda and not an accurate reflection of history. There is no real reason to call her bloodthirsty or speak of her rampages, as you have written here. If you like history, I suggest looking into this in more depth.

You do not have to agree with what I wrote but kindly refrain from giving me unsolicited advice/suggestions, thank you.

 

[JReducation]

As someone who has always loved history (even before I converted) I have to take objection to the subjectivist view of it. Those under Queen Mary would have at least had fair trials and hearings; under the others i) judicial murder and ii) massacres (under Henry VIII, Edward VI’s council (Edward was just a boy)) was the norm. For examples of judicial murder, see what happened to Thomas More under Henry VIII and Edmund Campion, S.J., under Elizabeth I. The massacres have already been mentioned (Pilgrimage of Grace, Henry VIII and Prayer Book rebellion, Edward VI’s Council, set up by Henry VIII).

It is simply wrong to call Queen Mary bloodthirsty as it obscures her remarkable virtues and especially her outstanding courage. Queen Mary and Queen Catherine are legitimate heroines.

That’s not my point. My point is that the term adequately defines how the Protestants felt about her. It does not mean that she was bloodthirsty. But if one wants to know how the Protestants viewed Queen Mary, all that one has to say is, “They called her Bloody Mary.” That being said, there is no need to explain that they did not have much love for her. It’s not a mark on her character. It a description of how a particular group of people felt about her. We can’t deny that this was the way they felt.

I thought per the Vatican press office we wouldn’t hear anything new till mid-May?

I heard that from someone else. I don’t know if it was speculation or official.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[floresco]

Yes, it was the name given to her by the Protestants after she brought back the anti heresy laws and burnt a number at the stake.

Under 300 people were killed under Mary. Over a thousand were killed under Elizabeth. The title “Bloody Mary” was coined by Protestants and is not appropriate for use by Catholics or neutral historians.

 

[floresco]

This is totally off topic. But just a quick question of curiosity, because you seem to be knowledgeable of English history. Is there any modern trace of the Tudors?

When the Tudor line died out, the throne went to James VI of Scotland (who became James I of England). His mother was Mary, Queen of Scots. She was the daughter of James V. James V had a Tudor for his mother, Margaret. James I (VI) is not considered a Tudor since he descended through a female, but from a genetic perspective, he can be traced to the Tudors.

When the Stuart line started by James I was deposed, they were succeeded by the House of Hanover. The first king of this line was George I. His mother was a granddaughter of James I. Therefore, again genetically rather than politically, the Tudor line continued.

When the House of Hanover died out, Queen Victoria came to the throne and started the House of Windsor. She was a grand-daughter of George III, a direct descendant of George I.

Queen Elizabeth II, is of the House of Windsor and a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Even though the Royal House has changed several times since the Tudors, the current queen can trace her ancestry to them.

 

[The_Scott]

Queen Elizabeth II, is of the House of Windsor and a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Even though the Royal House has changed several times since the Tudors, the current queen can trace her ancestry to them.

Fun fact: the House of Windsor (the current House) was originally called the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (the most prominent branch of the House of Wettin). However, the royal house’s name was changed in 1917 due to the anti-German sentiment during the First World War.

So, in a way, the Germans are still in control of the English crown, since the House of Hanover.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Boy, did you guys lose your way.

CLOSED