Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

Unlike in England - the head of State of Spain was distinct from the head of their religion.

The head of the Church of England, not the head of their religion. As far as I'm aware, the C. of E., whatever its faults or merits, is still a branch of Christianity, and not a whole new religion. Under Elizabeth's influence, it retained the Anglo-Catholic aspects of Henry VIII's time, and she was against married bishops, and certainly against divorced or maried bishops re-marrying- as her treatment of one indicated. In fact members of her Privy Council, the Church and the Commons were decidedly more 'Protestant' or Puritanical than her. Also, she was not a theologian, or a priestess.

Rather odd if she was meant to be running a theocracy. Also rather odd that the supposed theocrats, the bishops and archbishops, had no control over the army, the government, the justices of the peace, the navy, or the executive.


In short, England was a monarchy (not an absolutism or despotism) with an elected House of Commons and a House of Lords- a parliament which Elizabeth was constrained to call when she was in need of funds for either the running of the state or in the earlier part of her reign for costly foreign adventures (the war with France, a legacy of her sister Mary's reign, for instance). This again, is basic grammar school knowledge. I'm honestly astonished that someone claiming to have a history degree can assert otherwise.


But not that astonished that it's you doing so...

Henry VIII declared himself pope of his new religion

Please provide an instance of his doing so. Otherwise this is mere hysteria & exaggeration on your part.

Head of state = defender of the faith and the man in charge of the new state religion.

It was not a new religion. It was still Christianity. Defender of the faith was a title bestowed on Henry by a pope, I believe... Henry was simply head of the Church of England- not a priest, not the chief priest, nor despite his interest in theology, a theologian. He was a Renaissance dynast with a keen interest in a male heir. And he ruled over a kingdom, not a theocracy.

Persecution which ended under Henry VIII? No.

Answer the question. Were the Lollards persecuted by the Plantagenet dynasty ? The truth is yes.

So did Henry VIII.

BORING. Yes, I admit, Henry VIII was at one time a persecuting Roman Catholic.

Henry II was censured by Pope Alexander III after his murder of Catholic Thomas Beckett, and Henry II submitted. The Catholic church under the Plantagenets was not the theocracy that England later became under the Tudors.

If you mean did Mary Tudor (Roman Catholic) have her government reenact the legislation against heresy dating from Plantagenet days, then yes she did. And if you mean did Mary Tudor have a surprisisngly large number of people executed for their faith and their faith alone in her short reign, then yes, she did.

Repeating your vacuous opinion that England was a theocracy under the Tudors doesn't make it so.

[molly bloom]

Yet she executed many prominent Catholics including Mary Queen of Scots. She had no justification for killing Mary,

Unbelievable. So all of the evidence against Mary, that written in her own hand, her collusion with Norfolk, the plots with France, with Spain, the Ridolfi Plot, the Babington Plot, none of that counts as 'justification' . Let's be clear- Mary Stuart was a guest who plotted the removal of the monarch whose realm she lived in. She conspired with hostile foreign powers and with ambitious Catholic or crypto-Catholic aristocrats to have Elizabeth dethroned, imprisoned or murdered. The only wonder is that she lasted so long...

as we see in her elevation of her son, James VI/I to the throne of England.

Elizabeth did not elevate James to the throne of England. She was dead when he was crowned. He succeeded by virtue of his descent through Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley.

You are a fool.

And was she involved

I'm sorry, but 'she' who ? As again, when you get a bit distressed, your grasp of English lets you down.

So Elizabeth had the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots executed on false pretences.

Not at all. It's not like this is arcane historical knowledge vouchsafed only to bonkers Catholic converts like you. Elizabeth persisted in her belief that hereditary privilege outweighed religious concerns- not bad for someone you seem to think of as a high priestess- and this is why Mary Stuart lived for a s long as she did.

It's not merciful when you execute someone innocent, Molly.

Prove Mary Stuart's innocence.

You mean the same plots that the Parliament which approved of the execution of Catholics saw everywhere?

You're confusing Parliament with the Privy Council, and also exaggerating. Shock.

Either the plots were really terribly done

They were, but Elizabeth also had a formidable spymaster in Walsingham, who had a netwrok of informers and double agents, from London to Madrid.

Not vague at all.

'Many' is vague.

Many Dissenters and Catholics left because the colonies had official religious toleration.

Which colonies ? Masschusetts did not 'tolerate' Catholics. Which colonies in the Americas tolerated Catholics ? Massachusetts would not tolerate Quakers, or the Dissenters who went on to found Rhode Island and Connecticut. You'd know that if they ever taught you this in school.



Digging your own grave.....

Attending a mass or performing one was considered treasonous in Elizabethan England.

Gosh, well we're talkig about quite a long reign, and with some interesting events taking place in Continental Europe in Roman Catholic kingdoms. Perhaps it might be of some use to place it in some kind of context- like how many Protestants, Muslims or Jews were living in Spain at the same time ? Or when exactly did official harassment of Catholics increase in Elizabethan England ?

So once again, - we see that you blame others for Elizabeth's religious persecution in England.

Not at all. Once again, we see me placing the conflict with treasonous Catholics in Elizabethan England in a wider European context. And also distinguishing between the wishes and actions of Elizabeth and those of her Privy Council and Parliaments.....

Do you think that will fare well with God?

I'm an atheist. I don't care what you think a supernatural being might think.

Uh, they were persecuted in England. Do they not teach you that in your grammar school education?

They indeed taught me that the Pilgrim Fathers were a group of Dissenters who left England during the reign of James I & VI. Not Elizabeth.

[N35t0r]

Which means exactly what to jolly old england?

You tell me, you brought them up.

True the monarchy has had problems, but surely you can see that it's far, far superior to what Argentina has experienced.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. You yourself, up there, was complanig about all the catholic executions/prosecution, then Mary did her share on the protestants. Add to that succession and civil wars, and wars with other nations on the only grounds such as 'You're my cousin thrice removed, so I think all your lands should be mine. Here's a bunch of my peasants to slaughter yours.'

The point being that criticizing England when Argentina's system is so terrible makes no sense to me. England is a beacon of Democracy in comparison. Even under the Tudors.

So because my democracy has a relatively high degree of corruption (which ultimately is the fault of the voters), I can't say I prefer it to a system where the people in power got there through violence? And I can't laugh at the concept of one hereditary dictatorship being somehow more legitimate than the next?

[N35t0r]

Yes, but you treasure democracy as something newly won. Give it a couple of generations. I pay my taxes not out of belief in the social contract, but in the knowledge that not doing so will lead to fines, arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Same as almost every other law-abiding citizen on earth.

No, totally, I agree with this. My point is that even the worse democracies (as long as they are functioning democracies, not the farce that Cuba has, for example) are more legitimate (in that the government's power comes directly from the citizen's agreement) than a ruler who got there through sheer force.

Throughout history, there have been monarchs who ruled humanely and with broad popular support. There have also been ruthless, thuggish democracies--think Athens around the time of the Peloponnesian war. In the end, all rule and law is backed by the threat of force. Which is not to deny that democracy is generally vastly superior...

Yeah, and even here most of the coups were done with significant popular support, and they toppled very weak governments. I still think that the weak democratic governments were more legitimate than the juntas.

I was making fun of BK's belief that some branch of the kings of england, through blood ties, was somehow more legitimate than the other.

[molly bloom]

Uhh, yeah, she was Queen of Scots,

You said Elizabeth executed 'rulers' . In using the plural form you were wrong, and in assuming that Mary Stuart was still a ruler you are also wrong. Her son ruled in Scotland.

You can't be married to two women at the same time.

Bigamists manage it all the time. Also, not interested in your opinion of the legitimacy or otherwise of Anne Boleyn's marriage.

Neither are you!

Re: facts. See above.

Then why didn't Philip do the same when Mary died?

He was not crowned king, and the agreement with him on the marriage with Mary Tudor differed from the agreement reached with William when he came to England.

Henry VIII did that for Catholics, as did Elizabeth and Edward.

I'm so bored with you never giving any facts just opinions. Who was executed for their faith alone, by Elizabeth's orders, and when ? When by Edward ? Et cetera...

The problem is that Henry VIII established a theocracy where the head of state was identical to the head of the religion

The Church of England is part of Christianity. Henry VIII did not set himself up as the head of Christianity.

something not seen in Plantagenet England which remained devoted to orthodox Catholicism.

This is the same Plantagenet England which was so devoted to orthodox Catholicism it gave rise to Wycliffe and the Lollards. As well as a marked anti-clerical feeling, expressed in its literature. You really are dim.

The papal bull of excommunication, dropped after her execution of Catholic nobles, priests and laymen.

Wrong ! The Rising of the North (Revolt of the Northern Earls) Autumn 1569

Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis February 1570

The Pope imagined the Rising either was or was going to be successful. In this (because of the distances involved) he was sadly misinformed. His actions (deplored by Catholics who knew better) led directly to the assumption that English Catholics were traitors or would-be traitors.

Going to mass was sufficient to qualify for treason under Elizabethan England.

See above.

Because England was less a theocracy under Mary than it was under William III.

You have yet to show that England was a theocracy at all, nor how this theocracy operated. Who did William have persecuted for their faith alone ? The Act Of Toleration of 1689 would seem to indicate to any but the insane that England (unlike Spain or France) was not a confessional state.

It wasn't until Emancipation in the 19th that England, finally, took the fledgling steps towards becoming a representative democracy

Boring. the 1832 Reform Act is a better date.

Who has the superior claim?

Not interested in your opinion. You talked of the Stuarts being supplanted, as if William, Mary and Anne were not themselves of Stuart descent. You were wrong.

Again.

I find it difficult to believe that you have an actual black 'friend' when you parade the 'friend' out as a token.

I don't.

You assumed I had 'a' black friend. I certainly have 'a' Francophone woman friend from Cameroon, but then I also have friends from Nigeria (now British citizens), and friends from Sierra Leone, for instance. I don't readily think of them as my black friends, any more than I pause to think of my 'white' friends.

You said that persecution in England was justified because of persecution in Spain.

Did I ? Then quote me.

Thomas Hobbes didn't think so.

The Hobbes of 'Leviathan' ? Don't believe you've read it. Otherwise you wouldn't be confusing him with Locke.

The Sejm was far more representative than Parliament at the time.

Was it ? Looks like we have to take your unsupported word for it, don't we ?

Again, avoiding the point that no Catholic country was a democracy in the 17th Century.

I'm sure they teach you plenty about the Sejm in English Grammar school.

I'm sure your knowledge of the workings of the Sejm is as extensive as your knowledge of the workings of Elizabethan parliaments.

And his claim was inferior to James Francis Edward Stuart, who's father was a king, James VII/II

A king who forfeited his throne because of his bigotry and ineptitude. And whose daughter was William's wife, and co-ruler.

It had everything to do with bigotry towards Catholicism. James II/VII's second wife was Catholic, Mary of Modena.

No it didn't. It had everything to do with James's mismanagement of the realm. But that of course is too difficult for you to admit....

[Elok]

I was making fun of BK's belief that some branch of the kings of england, through blood ties, was somehow more legitimate than the other.

Well, according to the usual rules and standards established by and for monarchies, they were. Sort of like Todd Akin's "legitimate rape," I think.

[Ben Kenobi]

So because my democracy has a relatively high degree of corruption (which ultimately is the fault of the voters), I can't say I prefer it to a system where the people in power got there through violence? And I can't laugh at the concept of one hereditary dictatorship being somehow more legitimate than the next?

You can call us when your 'democracy' has lasted longer than the reign of the current queen. Sheesh. I've been posting on Apolyton longer than Argentina has been a democracy FFS!

[N35t0r]

You can call us when your 'democracy' has lasted longer than the reign of the current queen. Sheesh. I've been posting on Apolyton longer than Argentina has been a democracy FFS!

So your 'argument' is that, since Argentina has had a military coup, then whatever I say is irrelevant. Good to know. While I don't like the way you debate and don't share some of your beliefs, I generally didn't think you were such an *******.

[Ben Kenobi]

You said Elizabeth executed 'rulers' . In using the plural form you were wrong, and in assuming that Mary Stuart was still a ruler you are also wrong. Her son ruled in Scotland.

She was a ruler and she was also Elizabeth's heir apparent. The Church frowns on executing family members, especially when they are rulers, and especially when they are under your care. This is not difficult Molly. Elizabeth was a kinslayer.

Bigamists manage it all the time. Also, not interested in your opinion of the legitimacy or otherwise of Anne Boleyn's marriage.

Elizabeth was illegitimate, as Catherine was still alive when Elizabeth was born. By all rights the order was Mary Queen of Scots followed by the Hamiltons, (via, Edward I, Edmund of Woodstock, Joan of Kent, Thomas Holland, Margaret Holland, Joan Beaufort, and James II, King of Scotland).

He was not crowned king

And yet William III was. Odd that. Apparently England was a fief of the Dutch.

I'm so bored with you never giving any facts just opinions. Who was executed for their faith alone, by Elizabeth's orders, and when ? When by Edward ? Et cetera...

We start with the Queen of Scots. We add a dash of Thomas Percy, the Earl of Northumberland. That's two of the nobility she executed.

The Church of England is part of Christianity. Henry VIII did not set himself up as the head of Christianity.

Actually, yes, he did. He set himself up as the head of the COE, and declared that the COE was the established church. Go read the Act of Supremacy I've cited in every single post.

This is the same Plantagenet England which was so devoted to orthodox Catholicism it gave rise to Wycliffe and the Lollards.

I find it telling that you regard Wycliffe and the Lollards as evidence of persecution, but say that executing Catholics was ok because they were traitors. Go read the Act of Supremacy and get back to me. Catholics were not permitted to practice their faith.

The papal bull of excommunication, dropped after her execution of Catholic nobles, priests and laymen.
Wrong ! The Rising of the North (Revolt of the Northern Earls) Autumn 1569

Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis February 1570

So you're confirming this was the case? Thank you, molly!

The Pope imagined the Rising either was or was going to be successful. In this (because of the distances involved) he was sadly misinformed. His actions (deplored by Catholics who knew better) led directly to the assumption that English Catholics were traitors or would-be traitors.

Yawn, perhaps Elizabeth should have refrained from persecution of Catholics if she didn't want to be excommunicated.

See above.

Ooh, See above also.

You have yet to show that England was a theocracy at all, nor how this theocracy operated.

I have. Go read the Act of Supremacy. Catholics were not permitted to practice their faith - to go to mass as it was considered treason.

Who did William have persecuted for their faith alone

Did William rescind the Act of Supremacy? The Test acts, which was passed shortly before the 'Glorious revolution'? Or did he uphold and enforce both.

England (unlike Spain or France) was not a confessional state.

The existence of the Act of Supremacy and the Test Acts is evidence contrary that England was in fact a confessional state until Emancipation, when England finally took the first steps towards becoming a representative democracy, and away from being a theocracy. Last I checked the COE has members of the Lords, does it not?

Boring. the 1832 Reform Act is a better date.

Baby steps. Emancipation was 1829. Reform came 3 years later. Imagine that - allowing Catholics to vote brought about the Reform acts swiftly thereafter. Perhaps if England desired democracy earlier, they should have emancipated earlier.

Not interested in your opinion. You talked of the Stuarts being supplanted, as if William, Mary and Anne were not themselves of Stuart descent. You were wrong.

Are you suggesting that James Francis Edward Stuart did not have the superior claim, to William, let alone Mary?

You assumed I had 'a' black friend. I certainly have 'a' Francophone woman friend from Cameroon, but then I also have friends from Nigeria (now British citizens), and friends from Sierra Leone, for instance. I don't readily think of them as my black friends, any more than I pause to think of my 'white' friends.

Yet you readily trotted them out as your black friend here. Odd that.

Did I ? Then quote me.

You did. You automatically (and reflexively state), everytime persecution of Catholics in England is exposed, with persecution in Spain and France since "Catholics deserved it". Not a great argument, Molly.

The Hobbes of 'Leviathan' ? Don't believe you've read it. Otherwise you wouldn't be confusing him with Locke.

Have read it. Actually fond of Hobbes. Didn't confuse the two. Thought Locke first and then recalled Hobbes who has the even better argument.

Was it ? Looks like we have to take your unsupported word for it, don't we ?

At last check Poland Lithuania didn't bar the franchise from Protestants making the Sejm more representative than England at the time.

Again, avoiding the point that no Catholic country was a democracy in the 17th Century.

Ooh, unsupported BAM.

I'm sure your knowledge of the workings of the Sejm is as extensive as your knowledge of the workings of Elizabethan parliaments.

Thanks Molly!

A king who forfeited his throne because of his bigotry and ineptitude.

As opposed to Anne, William and Mary II, all spectacular rulers?

No it didn't. It had everything to do with James's mismanagement of the realm. But that of course is too difficult for you to admit....

The historical evidence at the time demonstrates that it was all about Catholicism.

[Ben Kenobi]

So your 'argument' is that, since Argentina has had a military coup, then whatever I say is irrelevant. Good to know. While I don't like the way you debate and don't share some of your beliefs, I generally didn't think you were such an *******.

We should put up a 'Junta timer'. BTW, how's the conversion from Pesos coming along?

[Elok]

Er, before you get too smug, how much of Argentina's turbulent past is due to the U.S. supporting their dictators in the name of fighting communism? I'm going to randomly guess, based on our history in the region, on an amount between "a fair amount" and "most of it."

[regexcellent]

I don't think we were big fans of Juan Peron or subsequent Argentinian administrations.

[Ben Kenobi]

Er, before you get too smug, how much of Argentina's turbulent past is due to the U.S. supporting their dictators in the name of fighting communism? I'm going to randomly guess, based on our history in the region, on an amount between "a fair amount" and "most of it."

And what precisely does that have to do with the argument concerning the legitimacy of the British Monarchy? Last I checked Americans weren't subject to the Queen.

[Elok]

Well, what precisely does the political history of Argentina have to do with N35t0r's opinions? You don't get to act huffy about irrelevant comments when they're made in response to your own non sequitur, sorry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, what precisely does the political history of Argentina have to do with N35t0r's opinions?

Arguing that the monarchy (which was established by force), a thousand years ago is less legitimate than the concept of Democracy which was established by the American Revolution, also through force makes no sense to me.

NES seems to believe that democracy magically establishes itself.

You don't get to act huffy about irrelevant comments when they're made in response to your own non sequitur, sorry.

Nes was closer to the mark in attacking the British Monarchy than you are in attacking the Revolution. You really think I'm a fan of it?