Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

"Well, the official sources are biased, so we should just go by how terrible I imagine the real figures to be."

Would you expect Henry VIII's Privy Council to provide an accurate count?

And if you're claiming tens of thousands of missing casualties, unmentioned bishops are unlikely to account for a significant percentage. Unless England had thousands of bishops.

All I'm arguing is that the lists we have today are by no means exhaustive. Arguing "so and so says only this many people died, means that this was the true extent", is false. All we can say from it is that these are a minimum estimate, not a maximum.

[Elok]

Would you expect Henry VIII's Privy Council to provide an accurate count?



All I'm arguing is that the lists we have today are by no means exhaustive. Arguing "so and so says only this many people died, means that this was the true extent", is false. All we can say from it is that these are a minimum estimate, not a maximum.

I think this is what they call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It is entirely possible that Henry's figures are incorrect in some way; it does not follow from that alone that the real figures were higher by, what, an order of magnitude? More than that, even? Your only other argument is that it was consistent with Henry's character to kill a crap-ton of people. So what? It was also consistent with Henry's character to hump everything in a skirt; we don't take that as evidence that he fathered two thousand children.

[Elok]

I don't know why you guys bother with this idiot.

It's the magical combination of easily-refuted arguments, outrageous claims, and dogged persistence. We can't resist his charms.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think this is what they call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It is entirely possible that Henry's figures are incorrect in some way; it does not follow from that alone that the real figures were higher by, what, an order of magnitude?

He executed around 50 nobles. Given their proportion of the population, I don't see 75k as a stretch.

More than that, even? Your only other argument is that it was consistent with Henry's character to kill a crap-ton of people.

He didn't hesitate to execute in order to maintain social order in England. Why would he hesitate to execute rabble rousers that were standing in his way? Especially not when the dissolution of the monasteries and the income derived thereof were a significant proportion of his income? Henry VIII spent it all too. Back then - how many would care if he executed commoners? Would anything be written down about them to be passed on? Unlikely.

we don't take that as evidence that he fathered two thousand children.

Right because every time you have sex you father a child.

[Elok]

He executed around 50 nobles. Given their proportion of the population, I don't see 75k as a stretch.

What? I'd imagine he killed an unusually large percentage of the nobility because the nobility were in a position that put them at constant risk of offending him, or that gave him the opportunity to conspire against him. He killed a relatively low percentage of, say, haberdashers. OTOH, he did kill an alarmingly large percentage of his wives. Based on their proportion of the population, I'd say he depopulated the island.

He didn't hesitate to execute in order to maintain social order in England. Why would he hesitate to execute rabble rousers that were standing in his way? Especially not when the dissolution of the monasteries and the income derived thereof were a significant proportion of his income? Henry VIII spent it all too. Back then - how many would care if he executed commoners? Would anything be written down about them to be passed on? Unlikely.

Again, this is positive evidence of nothing.

[C0ckney]

blah blah blah

so to sum up, you don't actually have any evidence whatsoever that 70,000-75,000, or even anything approaching that number, were executed by henry VII. if you want to claim that henry VIII had 2.6% of the english population put to death, then you need to do a bit better than "well, you know, we only know about this many... there could have been more. i'll pull a number out of my rear end and call it that"

my information about the priests and church comes from "the english church in the sixteenth century from the accession of henry VIII to the death of mary" by james gairdner and "henry VIII and the english monasteries" by francis gasquet (which gives a very interesting account of the fates of different monasteries). the figures for the pilgrimage of grace are well known and can be found in any history of the period. the list of catholic martyrs on wiki has as its main source the catholic encyclopedia. presumably the authors weren't interested in undercounting catholic martyrs.

[Ben Kenobi]

What? I'd imagine he killed an unusually large percentage of the nobility because the nobility were in a position that put them at constant risk of offending him

The nobility, unlike the commoners were able to defend themselves much better.

Based on their proportion of the population, I'd say he depopulated the island.

Argument stands. The argument that the proportion would be roughly similar makes far more sense than your counterarguments.

Again, this is positive evidence of nothing.

Your argument is that the maximum number he killed is the list of people that we have today. Essentially, "If we don't have documents showing that person X were killed, Henry VIII didn't kill them". How many people do we have actual documentary evidence of their existence? Can we extrapolate from this to come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence that we do have as to the evidence that has been lost or records that were not even kept? Sure.

[Ben Kenobi]

you don't actually have any evidence whatsoever

I already cited evidence. Now if you wish to attack the evidence cited, go to the library.

presumably the authors weren't interested in undercounting catholic martyrs.

Your own source warns the list is not exhaustive. Checkmate.

[C0ckney]

I already cited evidence. Now if you wish to attack the evidence cited, go to the library.

no, you haven't cited evidence of anything. it's been said before, but you must be the worst history teacher ever.

Your own source warns the list is not exhaustive. Checkmate.

so fewer than 70 is not exhaustive. let me know when you find evidence of the other 74,930+ martyrs.

[kentonio]

What lies? Elizabeth executed her innocent cousin who, at the time, was her Heir apparent.

Elizabeth resisted the demands of parliament to execute Mary for 18 and a half years. She lived in a time where being overthrown would almost certainly have led to her own death, yet she couldn't bring herself to order the death of a family member until the endless plotting left her with no choice.

She also executed many Catholic nobles in her reign and also executed Catholic laypeople and priests. After Elizabeth the catholic heirarchy of bishops and priest wasn't restored until after Catholic emancipation. Thanks to the Act of Supremacy, Catholics were deprived of private property, monasteries were stripped and priests executed along with laypeople to the tune of around 72k during Henry's reign alone.

This is absolutely hilarious. I did a little googling to see where this nonsense had come from, and found it printed as a claim on a Catholic blog called FatherJoe. Funnily enough, it then included a correction which I've included below..

*CORRECTION? The figures here come from O’Brien’s booklet (see first post) of the 1950′s. But I received the following information by email:

Henry’s victims were John Fisher and Thomas More, the Carthusian abbots and monks, and a few more Catholics, plus all those (several hundred) executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace. Plus, he had a number of Protestants executed for denying the Six Articles of 1540 approx. But he certainly didn’t kill 72,000.

In England and Wales, we have about 500 martyrs and confessors in total over the period 1534 – 1679. I believe the last Catholic died in prison about 1720.

Elizabeth’s victims may have been about 300, plus those executed after the rising of the Northern Earls of 1569-70. But this is over the whole of her reign, 1558-1603.

If the death toll of the Inquisition is in the range 2000-5000.

Fr Francis Marsden MA PhD STL
St Joseph’s Parish
Anderton nr Chorley Lancs.

If you'd like to disagree with this priest and pit your degree against his Masters and PhD, you can contact him at stmaryschorley@yahoo.co.uk.

Excommunication for executing Catholic priests, laypeople is merciful and more mercy than she extended.

Stop trying to wriggle out of it, the pope put out a hit on a Christian monarch and he did it quite openly. Conspiracy to murder is not exactly a Christian value last time I checked.

[rah]

Why are we not surprised.

But don't worry, he'll be back to say we're all wrong.

[giblets]

He executed around 50 nobles. Given their proportion of the population, I don't see 75k as a stretch.

Wow, some historian you are...

[Sava]

and mathematician

[N35t0r]

I must say, I am interested to see which tactic he's going to use to deny he's utterly wrong...

He's certainly in a pickle, since Sava, Gribbler and Rah are americans, so he can't just attack their countries and invalidate their arguments by virtue of where they live.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, some historian you are...

Umm, what's the issue here? The nobility in England at the time was a very small percentage (less than one, and closer to a tenth). 50 of a tenth of the English population is the same order of magnitude here. It's plausible.