B
BListon
Guest
For what reason was St. Thomas More killed by Henry VIII?
- Status
E
ExLibris
Guest
He refused to bend to the marriage!
T
triumphguy
Guest
Because he was “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”
G
grasscutter
Guest
Also, I think he felt forced to order the execution out of sense of misguided and overweening pride. Ultimately, he seems to have felt that his authority wouldn’t be taken seriously if he allowed St. Thomas More to live.
M
monicabay
Guest
Hey, a bit off topic hers but did any one see the Tudors? It aired on Starz or showtime first but I watched it on netflix, and its on Amazon Prime. It was an excellent series about Henry VIII. I do hope it goes on to do Mary and Elizabeth. It was so good.
I feel I must say if you do decide to watch it, it can be graphic. Some nudity along with showing people “in the act” as well as the heads coming off. If you are sensitive to this you may want to skip it, and you way want to watch without kids around. My kids are teens, and we are honest and not shy about that reality, but it wasn’t something I would want to watch with them around!
I feel I must say if you do decide to watch it, it can be graphic. Some nudity along with showing people “in the act” as well as the heads coming off. If you are sensitive to this you may want to skip it, and you way want to watch without kids around. My kids are teens, and we are honest and not shy about that reality, but it wasn’t something I would want to watch with them around!
B
BListon
Guest
No I haven’t seen it yet, but it sounds cool, and i’m a HUGE history nerd!
P
ProVobis
Guest
There are less graphical movies on the subject.
A Man for All Seasons and Anne of a Thousand Days come to mind.
A Man for All Seasons and Anne of a Thousand Days come to mind.
H
Hokomai
Guest
As far as I can see the reasons were indistinguishable from the reasons which led More to kill people he considered heretics. In each case, the person in power perceived a threat, and deprived someone of their human rights as a result.
B
BListon
Guest
As far as I know Sir Thomas More never killed anyone.
H
Hokomai
Guest
A quick google will give you the names of those burned at the stake for heresy during his chancellorship. As I recall Henry was rather less vicious in More’s execution.
A
A_G
Guest
King Henry VIII had Sir Thomas More executed because Sir Thomas More believed in the Catholic Faith and would not convert to Protestantism. He refused to take the oath required by the Act of Supremacy of 1534. This oath was a declaration of the Henry VIII’s supremacy as the head of the Church of England. St. Thomas More did not convert to Protestantism - he died for his faith. Thomas More was Martyred and is now a Saint in the Catholic Church.
V
venite_adoremus
Guest
More was in the uncomfortable position of being the King’s Chancellor (nowdays we’d call him the Prime Minister), at a time when public execution was far more graphic and common than it is today. Yes, More had to order executions from time to time. So have many governors and civil rulers. That’s why More was content to specialize legally in the Court of Requests, which dealt with civil property matters rather than capital crimes. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs recounts the name of six “heretics” who were burned at the stake on More’s command (their names are known). There are some excellent biographies on More, and some not-so-excellent biographies which stem from the religious revolutions of the time. Don’t believe all the foment. Don’t believe everything you read. Do your own research.
More would not swear to the Act of Succession, on compulsion of high treason. More, by his silence on the question of the King’s marriage, made a louder noise than did many others in England. He was a figurehead of the opposition. So was John Fisher, with whom he was canonized. So was the Holy Maid of Kent. So were hundreds of priests, holy women, and other religious martyrs of the English Reformation. Had Henry only waited a few more years, Catherine would have died of old age, and of course Henry solved the Anne Boleyn problem with the sword. The marriage to Jane Seymour could have been regularized. Sigh. The road not taken.
More was ordered to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The King commuted it to a clean beheading. Martyrdom nonetheless.
Pretty good article, for once: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
More would not swear to the Act of Succession, on compulsion of high treason. More, by his silence on the question of the King’s marriage, made a louder noise than did many others in England. He was a figurehead of the opposition. So was John Fisher, with whom he was canonized. So was the Holy Maid of Kent. So were hundreds of priests, holy women, and other religious martyrs of the English Reformation. Had Henry only waited a few more years, Catherine would have died of old age, and of course Henry solved the Anne Boleyn problem with the sword. The marriage to Jane Seymour could have been regularized. Sigh. The road not taken.
More was ordered to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The King commuted it to a clean beheading. Martyrdom nonetheless.
Pretty good article, for once: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
G
GKC
Guest
H
Hokomai
Guest
So you would say that Henry ‘had’ to execute More?
L
LilyM
Guest
Henry made proposed laws into actual enforceable laws by royal assent (being King, it was kinda sorta his job to do so). In his day there were none of the current conventions against monarchs meddling in the making of laws, nor the convention that the monarch never refuses assent to a law that Parliament proposes. So his laws really were his laws. More did not make them.
Henry made the laws against heresy that More as Chancellor enforced, and Henry also made the law requiring taking of the Oath (and imposing the death penalty as punishment for refusal) knowing More and knowing full well that More would very likely refuse. He certainly didn’t (though he easily could have) granted More an exemption from that law, or pardon him when he DID refuse, or made any other concession such as commuting the penalty to one of exile or imprisonment. Henry could easily have done any of the above.
In summary, Henry WAS the law. More was not. Therein lies the difference between the actions of the two.
H
Hokomai
Guest
But the actions themselves were the same, were they not? And were they not each wrong?
M
Mark1970
Guest
Not a major point, but More’s position was Lord Chancellor, a post which still exists in the UK and is separate from the role of Prime Minister.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chancellor
L
LilyM
Guest
Their actions were about the same as the actions of a modern day Chief Justice of the Supreme Court v a modern day President of the US - only the differences were greater, imagine the POTUS having virtually unlimited and totally unchecked legislative power as well as executive power over the lives and limbs of citizens, as well as the Supreme Court Justice being the POTUS personal appointee without the rigamarole of Congress, which enquires into every Supreme Court appointment
Wrong? Henry’s probably. But Henry’s was as blatant a case of naked self-interest as can be imagined, as pretty much the only person who really benefited from the Oath that More was required to take, and the situation he was asked to approve in so doing, was Henry.
More, on the other hand … firstly he was not acting in any way which benefitted himself, directly or indirectly.
Secondly, remember he worked in turbulent times, where citizens could and did stage rebellions and revolutions - and start civil and international wars as well - where the sides were divided primarily by religious identity. And so religious differences were very important matters touching directly on the security of the State.
Are we really so different today? In situations where the religious becomes political and violent - for example Islamic terrorism - do we sit piously by and say that the veil of freedom of religion prevents civil punishment? On the contrary. Many would and do advocate no less than the death penalty for Muslims found guilty of interpreting their religion in a way that threatens the safety and lives of others.
I do not see any significant difference between this and what More was doing Henry, on the other hand, was threatened by absolutely no sort of violence by More. More was no Catholic jihadi by any means :shrugs:
H
Hokomai
Guest
He was acting in a way which benefited his religion.
Umm - the people More burned were **saying **things, and writing things about religion. You really can’t see a significant difference?
F
Fiasco
Guest
Is this scholarly site one of your sources of information?:
www.reformation.org/sir-thomas-more.html
www.reformation.org/thomas-more-bio.html
If you go to the Main Menu, there are links to lots of juicy “facts” about Roman Catholicism/the Vatican.
- Status