Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

i'm not interested in you regarding my sources as reliable, because you are a dishonest, paranoid and delusional imbecile. i explained in very clear language why this figure is unlikely to be correct in my first posts in this thread. here is the exchange.

And again - I've sought clarification from Fr. Marsden regarding the source. Now it may prove that there's an error in the review. Why would I be paranoid? It just gets tiring debating with people who immediately disregard any and all evidence that doesn't fit their prejudices.

[Ben Kenobi]

Feel free to actually answer the challenge though, either list how many 'Catholic Martyrs' were executed before 1569 or else concede that you're talking out of your ass.

Total Catholic martyrs are around 800 or so under most of the martyrologies, who were executed by the Crown for their faith. The majority, 500 or so, were under Elizabeth's reign.

If you claimed that 3% of the US population had been murdered by elves in the last decade I would feel confident calling that ridiculous. This claim of yours is barely any more credible. You're claiming a mass genocide that appears nowhere in the historical record. That is very stupid.

Who's claiming? It's already been established that this did occur in England via primary sources during Henry's reign. Molly's moved from arguing, "it's impossible" to, "not all of them were Catholic martyrs". Which raises the bar.

a) Please stop calling me Molly.
b) There are few things more dishonest than trying to pick quotes out of context to misinterpret the overall picture. It's something you do frequently and it's one (of several) reasons why everyone hates you.

Some folks have a permanent hate-on. Their actions demonstrate that it no longer matters what I do - hate is inevitable. It's surprisingly liberating!

Stop lying, you pathetic ****.

About what? Molly admitted the Pilgrimage of Grace wasn't taught. I asserted that it wasn't taught. Ergo, I do have an understanding of the curriculum over there.

Your assertion was that schools in England taught a revisionist version of history that only mentions pro-protestant events.

They do - they exclude events like the Pilgrimage of Grace.

As I've pointed out, they hardly teach anything about the period, and the overall message is a negative one towards monarchy in general.

I would guess, based on what I know of the curriculum that any portrayal of the Catholic church and the pope extends as far as the gunpowder plot, and "remember the fifth of november", so that we all know papists are terrorists.

I was also talking about comprehensives not grammar schools, given that I've never stepped foot in a grammar school in my life.

I wouldn't expect schools to differ radically...

It's a timeline you damn idiot. All you have to do is post some proof that any of those dates are incorrect. Go on then, back up your argument or STFU.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, especially not for synthesis.

No ****, however they were not executed for being Catholics, they died because they rose up against the crown.

Uh, yeah. They were executed because they were Catholics. Had they not been Catholic, they wouldn't have been executed.

That's a very obvious distinction that even a child could understand.

Right. Tyrant passes law making going to mass illegal and enforces it. Catholic goes to mass and commits treason. Gets arrested and ordered to recant his faith. Refuses. Hanged. Both Elizabeth and Henry did this.

If you'd just gone 'Catholics were oppressed under Henry for trying to practice their faith' we'd have agreed. Instead you decided to invent fairytales of mass executions that never happened.

The point is that the executions did occur under Elizabeth and Henry VIII.

You are a ****ing moron, you know that? I've set you a very simple challenge above that if you are telling the truth it should be easy for you to win. Prove the dates in the timeline I posted are wrong, or find a significant list of Catholics executed for heresy during Elizabeth's reign before 1569.

Make a list of left handed, latino, American league pitchers who threw no hitters before the Kennedy administration? Who cares?

Go on then 'historian', provide some actual history to back up your cretinous claims.

I love all the irrelevant disclaimer that you're using to salvage your ****ty argument. Here's a hint. If you have to have five disclaimers - you've lost the argument.

Your disclaimers:

1. 'Significant'. Presumably so that you can dismiss evidence you don't like.
2. '1569'. Who cares? The date is irrelevant.
3. Catholics. Because presumably other dissenters don't count.
4. 'heresy'. Because you can label any execution as 'not heresy'.
5. 'elizabeth's reign'. Because Henry doesn't doesn't count.

[C0ckney]

It's a citation demonstrating that the claim has been made by Eamon Duffy.

It's a citation all the same.

no it's a book review of a book which i doubt you've even read.

I believe he had 75k executed because Eamon Duffy, whom I regard as a reliable historian and professor at Cambridge believes that this occurred. Given issues with accurate counts at the time, it seems plausible to me, but I have sought greater information as to how he arrived at this figure. Which I have not yet received. Until then, I regard the matter as open.

in fact the book review you quoted gives 70,000. why the discrepancy? i suppose if you're just making it all up you might as well add another few thousand.

The number is provided. That you choose to reject that number isn't evidence that this number is in fact incorrect. Nor, in fact, is it evidence on my part of bias, as I have provided the citation claiming this occurred.

If you want me to regard your sources as reliable, I suggest you return the favor. I am under no obligation to provide further evidence for people who reject evidence contrary to their anti-Catholic prejudices.

i'm not interested in you regarding my sources as reliable, because you are a dishonest, paranoid and delusional imbecile. i explained in very clear language why this figure is unlikely to be correct in my first posts in this thread. here is the exchange.

let us examine briefly why this figure is very unlikely to be true. 72,000 executions, that would have been about 2.6% of the population of england (2,800,000 in 1550). that is a greater percentage of the population than was killed during the american civil war. herny viii reigned for 36 years, so that would be an average of 5.5 executions per day. for comparison, in the 18th century, there were about 100 executions per year in england and wales, giving a daily average of 0.28.

The reasoning behind it is a couple things.

1. The dissolution of the monasteries.
2. The Act of Supremacy.
3. The dismantling of the entire Catholic hierarchy. Priests, bishops, etc.

it doesn't seem plausible at all. very few were killed during the dissolution of the monasteries, a small handful of refuseniks. most monks, nuns and friars were given pensions. as a result of the revolt against the dissolution (the pilgrimage of grace), 216 people were executed. it's probable that some of the those who were dependants or servants of the religious houses (perhaps as many as 70,000-80,000) fell on hard times, and some may even have died. however, i would think that 70,000 people dying of want would have aroused some comment, so this seems unlikely.

.....

so the evidence seems to point to a few hundred executions, and most of those were for taking up arms against the king. it's possible that the economic dislocation from the dissolution of the monasteries caused some more deaths, but most would have found a place in the new economic order.

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).

you've danced around, written a load of utter ****e, said you'd do some research, but of course in the end, you've shown nothing, beyond your book review.

[kentonio]

Oh, lookee that. Wikipedia citation after you claimed not to consult the wikipedia. Gosh. What else is Molly lying about?

I wouldn't know, given that you're replying to my post and I'm not Molly.

Feel free to actually answer the challenge though, either list how many 'Catholic Martyrs' were executed before 1569 or else concede that you're talking out of your ass.

Your assertion amounted to merely stating such was impossible. I'm not quite sure why you expected this to be decisive.

If you claimed that 3% of the US population had been murdered by elves in the last decade I would feel confident calling that ridiculous. This claim of yours is barely any more credible. You're claiming a mass genocide that appears nowhere in the historical record. That is very stupid.

Thank you. No further questions, Molly.

a) Please stop calling me Molly.
b) There are few things more dishonest than trying to pick quotes out of context to misinterpret the overall picture. It's something you do frequently and it's one (of several) reasons why everyone hates you.

My assertion - grammar schools in England are not taught about the Pilgrimage of Grace. Your assertion, "yes Kenobi, you are quite correct on this."

Stop lying, you pathetic ****. Your assertion was that schools in England taught a revisionist version of history that only mentions pro-protestant events. As I've pointed out, they hardly teach anything about the period, and the overall message is a negative one towards monarchy in general.

I was also talking about comprehensives not grammar schools, given that I've never stepped foot in a grammar school in my life.

Once again, it's wikipedia. Self-published sources are irrelevant.

It's a timeline you damn idiot. All you have to do is post some proof that any of those dates are incorrect. Go on then, back up your argument or STFU.

By whom? Catholics. And why? Because they were being persecuted.

No ****, however they were not executed for being Catholics, they died because they rose up against the crown. That's a very obvious distinction that even a child could understand.

That's why your approach to all this is so stupid. If you'd just gone 'Catholics were oppressed under Henry for trying to practice their faith' we'd have agreed. Instead you decided to invent fairytales of mass executions that never happened.

Elizabeth executed Mary Queen of Scots who was her cousin and heir apparent. Fact. Most monarchs on the English throne did not execute their heir apparent. Also fact. Richard III, who is accused (though not proven to have done so), was considered a bloodthirsty kinslayer, also fact.

If accusations of Richard III are sufficient to establish his reputation for all time, what can we say about actual proof that not only did this occur, but that Elizabeth was aware of it and responsible?

We can say that you're an idiot and that no-one cares?

You do hate Catholics and reject evidence from them consistantly.

You are a ****ing moron, you know that? I've set you a very simple challenge above that if you are telling the truth it should be easy for you to win. Prove the dates in the timeline I posted are wrong, or find a significant list of Catholics executed for heresy during Elizabeth's reign before 1569.

Go on then 'historian', provide some actual history to back up your cretinous claims.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not history or lack of bias- it's propaganda. If you're not a Plantagenet claimant to the throne of England then we are forced to conclude the reason for this imbalance and bias is your repeatedly announced conversion to Roman Catholicism, and nothing else.

Right, because we all know that an athiest has no bias towards Roman Catholicism.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if I then told you that the bishop in question was the brother of one of King Henry’s sworn enemies – the Admiral of France who led the same failed invasion of England that also saw the loss of Henry’s flagship, the Mary Rose? Between the personal, national, and denominational angst that the bish must have held toward Henry, we have more than enough bias to have serious concerns over the figure given.

Gosh that sounds an awful lot that 'those Catholics can't be trusted!' What was that about not accepting Catholic evidence? Clearly you've just established that not only was it possible for Henry to execute that many people - you've provided that he actually did so.

[Ben Kenobi]

figure of 72,000 is usually (even today) attributed to chronicler Holinshed, but incorrectly so (a sure sign of a lack of primary source checking by those perpetuating a claim). The figure is sometimes disputed on the basis that said author was writing some 30 years after Henry’s death, but in fact by historical standards, that’s still a primary source. It’s actually William Harrison’s ‘Description of England‘ that the claim appears;

“Henry the Eighth, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons, I mean, great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up threescore-and-twelve thousand of them in his time.”

So not only does this put your statement to lie that such numbers were 'impossible', this is primary source evidence defending the figures.

What's that Molly? I thought you said executing 3 percent of the population couldn't be done. Sounds like the Reign of Terror.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a lie you've repeated several times now, and which is easily disproved by a simple timeline.

1569 - Revolt of the Northern Earls
1570 - Regnans in Excelsis excommunicating Elizabeth and ordering Catholics to oppose her rule as a matter of faith
1571 - Elizabeth's government issues anti-Catholic decrees
1571+ - Bulk of executions carried out against Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...4.E2.80.931547)

Oh, lookee that. Wikipedia citation after you claimed not to consult the wikipedia. Gosh. What else is Molly lying about?

Yeah sure, it's all just a conspiracy.

Google "tudor historians". Hardly a conspiracy when pro-Tudor bias has been well documented.

A citation to a work which was quickly demolished as utterly ridiculous.

Your assertion amounted to merely stating such was impossible. I'm not quite sure why you expected this to be decisive.

Stop repeating questions I've already answered please, we were not taught she was a monster, because that would have been patently untrue.

Yes, executing her cousin makes her a champion of the untrammelled, loved by the poor and all.

At my school? No

Thank you. No further questions, Molly.

Which makes your idea of a mass revisionist program even more ridiculous.

My assertion - grammar schools in England are not taught about the Pilgrimage of Grace. Your assertion, "yes Kenobi, you are quite correct on this."

Stop telling lies. I've posted the timeline above. If you want to disprove it then supply a list of executions that occurred before 1569.

Once again, it's wikipedia. Self-published sources are irrelevant.

The Pilgrimage of grace was a rebellion you idiot.

By whom? Catholics. And why? Because they were being persecuted.

I think you need to learn what revisionism actually means. When the evidence is clearly against you (as it is here) that's just you being wrong, it's not revisionism.

Elizabeth executed Mary Queen of Scots who was her cousin and heir apparent. Fact. Most monarchs on the English throne did not execute their heir apparent. Also fact. Richard III, who is accused (though not proven to have done so), was considered a bloodthirsty kinslayer, also fact.

If accusations of Richard III are sufficient to establish his reputation for all time, what can we say about actual proof that not only did this occur, but that Elizabeth was aware of it and responsible?

You and a few other crackpots making wild claims does not equal 'well attested'.

Again, "Tudor historians". Not difficult to find or document.

If you have evidence that can overcome the huge bodies of work that oppose you then produce it. Oh and stop with the contemptible 'You just hate Catholics' victim card crap, it's pathetic.

You do hate Catholics and reject evidence from them consistantly.

[kentonio]

As compared with what occurred in Germany during the 30 years war, this is not only in line, but rather light in terms of religious persecutions going on at the time.

Please learn to read.

without any evidence of any sort to support that

[Ben Kenobi]

I used to feel some pity for you.

Now I think as all your intellectual deceit and self-deception is revealed, you richly and fully deserve all you get.

FRAUD. And you don't even understand how I know this to be so!

[Ben Kenobi]

3% of the entire population of England at the time had been executed without any evidence of any sort to support that, you muppet.

As compared with what occurred in Germany during the 30 years war, this is not only in line, but rather light in terms of religious persecutions going on at the time.

[molly bloom]

Eamon Duffy is a credentialed historian, a professor at Cambridge.

.

And ?

How does that not make you dishonest and wrong ?

Oh, it doesn't.

Let's take your stance- he's Irish, Roman Catholic and therefore anything he has to say about religion in England post-Reformation MUST be biased.

Happily I read books by Irish writers regularly without assuming that they're biased by whatever unpleasant experiences they may have had growing up in a state that colluded with the Catholic Church in the exploitation of female slave labour in the Magdalene Laundries.

[Ben Kenobi]

you linked to a book review, where the author asserted that henry VIII had 70,000 executed. what is that evidence of?

It's a citation demonstrating that the claim has been made by Eamon Duffy.

it's not evidence that henry VIII had 70,000 people executed.

It's a citation all the same.

it is merely evidence that someone thinks that he did.

Just as your citations are evidence of what the COE believes. Reality differs substantially.

that some idiot, you, believes that he had 75,000 people executed.

I believe he had 75k executed because Eamon Duffy, whom I regard as a reliable historian and professor at Cambridge believes that this occurred. Given issues with accurate counts at the time, it seems plausible to me, but I have sought greater information as to how he arrived at this figure. Which I have not yet received. Until then, I regard the matter as open.

so all you have proven is that someone believes that henry VIII had 5,000 fewer people executed than you believe he had. you have shown nothing about the actual number of people he had executed, which is well known and which molly and i have given to you several times.

The number is provided. That you choose to reject that number isn't evidence that this number is in fact incorrect. Nor, in fact, is it evidence on my part of bias, as I have provided the citation claiming this occurred.

If you want me to regard your sources as reliable, I suggest you return the favor. I am under no obligation to provide further evidence for people who reject evidence contrary to their anti-Catholic prejudices.

[molly bloom]

Again, I supplied a citation.

You earlier claimed you provided a citation from the book being reviewed. You didn't; you supplied a review of the book itself.

Let us not forget that an unprecedented number — around 70,000 Englishmen — had been executed under Henry VIII during the religious and social upheavals he caused.

Those are the words of the reviewer, not the book's author. She does not state where she gets this figure from. I believe I have provided likeliest source for this error

Also :

Except it’s not really an up to date claim. It’s been doing the rounds since the 16th century, and is practically received knowledge. But more on that in a moment, as I like to subject these things to the old bull**** ‘smell test’. How plausible is the claim?

Well, the population in 1550 was around 2,800,000. 72,000 is 2.6% of the population – more than the percentage of the US population killed in the American Civil War, for example. That’s 2000 people a day on average – the equivalent of a large scale set-piece medieval battle. In fact, 72,000 deaths is more than twice the number of deaths than occurred in the bloodiest battle in English history. And I think the battle analogy is appropriate, because you’d be talking about a majority of physically able males – precisely the sort of people required to keep a strained post-medieval economy and fluctuating birth-rate going (bearing in mind that we aren’t just talking ‘capital’ crimes here). This would surely be a massive impact upon society (for better or worse) that (to the best of my knowledge) we just don’t see evidence of in the historical record. More than just one chronicler would have noticed a death toll of that nature. But more than that there’s the logistical difficulty of getting that many people killed. The Nazis had poison gas and automatic weapons. The Tudors had archery, arquebuses, and artillery. Then there’s the expense of (for the sake of argument) firing several people at a time out of a bombard – much easier to half-starve a criminal in a disease-ridden ****hole of a prison that he might well die in anyway.

Anyway, we’re verging on argument from incredulity, so let’s look at the evidence. This work has already been done, by James Anthony Froude and mid-19th century contributors to Notes and Queries. To summarise, the figure of 72,000 is usually (even today) attributed to chronicler Holinshed, but incorrectly so (a sure sign of a lack of primary source checking by those perpetuating a claim). The figure is sometimes disputed on the basis that said author was writing some 30 years after Henry’s death, but in fact by historical standards, that’s still a primary source. It’s actually William Harrison’s ‘Description of England‘ that the claim appears;

“Henry the Eighth, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons, I mean, great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up threescore-and-twelve thousand of them in his time.”

http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/regarding-henry-and-his-bodycount/

and further :

Thanks to Harrison giving his sources, we see that, via astrologer Girolamo Cardano, the source is actually the Bishop of Lisieux. Now, I don’t need to tell you that bishop is a Catholic post. Nor should I that Henry’s relationship with the Pope was not the most cordial. But if I also told you also that the claim by this bishop is often given as being 72,000 Catholics, and not “thieves and rogues”, you might get a sense of the bias bound up in this myth. Note also an Irish Republican who states that the figure has been “computed” in order to lend it extra weight.

What if I then told you that the bishop in question was the brother of one of King Henry’s sworn enemies – the Admiral of France who led the same failed invasion of England that also saw the loss of Henry’s flagship, the Mary Rose? Between the personal, national, and denominational angst that the bish must have held toward Henry, we have more than enough bias to have serious concerns over the figure given.

You are crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can argue about history with somebody honest who actually knows something about it. If it goes on long enough, you might get BFB in on the action too. As it is, you're just going over the same territory with BK over and over again; it's like a really crappy, run-down game of whack-a-mole where the mole only ever comes out one hole, takes multiple hits to go back down, and whines at you for your intolerance the whole time.

Someone got nailed with the rock that wasn't tossed at him!