Pope sends direct message to Ben

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[rah]

You couldn't even admit that you mixed up ken and molly on the "Wikipedia citation"

[Ben Kenobi]

You couldn't even admit that you mixed up ken and molly on the "Wikipedia citation"

Yeah, one of me, 17 of you. It happens when I go back and go through the posts.

[Elok]

Y'know, if Ken, C0ckney and Molly just talked to each other, I bet they could have a number of interesting, non-repetitive discussions about a number of fascinating historical subjects, beyond "was one of the most beloved monarchs in English history actually a sadistic psychopath?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good idea

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok - most discussion occurs through disagreement, not agreement. Your own dialectic works that way.

[kentonio]

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.

You claimed that The excommunication was in response to mass executions. I've shown a clear timeline showing that claim was bull****. You now claim 'The date is irrelevant'.

I've been keeping up this tiresome argument because I wanted a clear admission from you that history doesn't matter to you, only religion. You've just provided that, thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

You claimed that The excommunication was in response to mass executions.

I claimed it was due to her executing priests and laypeople. You know - exactly what the excommunication says.

I've shown a clear timeline showing that claim was bull****.

You posted a wikipedia article that you likely edited yourself.

[MOBIUS]

Yeah, one of me, 17 of you. It happens when I go back and go through the posts.

Yeah, one of you and seventeen of us (only seventeen, or are you making that up too!?), why do you think that is...!?