Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:22 AM   #31

Kiki19's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: The Carolinas
Posts: 1,209
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Most historians will disagree with you.
I believe you'll find most modern historians agree with me, have you ever picked up a biography on Mary I?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
She murdered her first Protestants in 1555 but Mary's persecution of Protestants started the moment she took to the Throne in 1553. She made it plain right from the start that she wouldn't tolerate those who practised Protestantism.
But she did tolerate most of them in the beginning, things changed after Wyatt's rebellion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
If you are talking about Wyatt's Rebellion then I have to tell you that I'm siding with the rebels on this one.
Of course you would, it was all about keeping those nasty Catholics out of England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
The rebellion started when Mary unwisely decided to marry the Catholic Philip II of Spain, a decision which was VERY unpopular with the English people. To put it simply, Mary had it coming to her. It was sheer provocation against the English people.
The choice to marry Philip was popular, but if it was as unpopular as you make it out to be, it would've been more then just Wyatt's bunch.
And I suppose every monarch who has rebellion against them "had it coming", would argue that for the one's during Elizabeth's reign?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
She murdered 300 people because of their faith in just five years. She was a bloodthirsty bigot who deserves to have gone down in history as a tyrant and England's worst queen.
She wasn't bloodthristy, she was strongly convicted to her faith just as most monarchs of her time, yet she is the only who receives the title. And she also wasn't anymore bigoted then the people of her time as well. She only stands out to you because she was Catholic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
As I've said time and time again - and as I've said just a few posts ago - Elizabeth did NOT persecute Catholics. Unlike Bloody Mary who didn't tolerate Protestantism one bit, Elizabeth tolerated Catholics and Catholicism and allowed them to worship in churches. The only Catholics she had executed were those who broke the law by worhipping in private as she was rightly concerned that such private "prayer meetings" were actually plots against her. Try studying this period of English history.
I have studying this period of history extensively, from all sides presented. Elizabeth persecuted Catholics, its right there in front of you. Not allowing people to worship as the wish, that's a form a persecution. Not allowing Priests, who had sworn support to her, to administer communion and preach, that's a form of persecution. Executing Catholics who continued to push for practicing Catholicism as they wished, that's a form of persecution. And of course, some them plotted against her, but there was a good majority that just wanted to practice their faith without big brother interrupting. Some of those names are in the link I put in my last post.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Elizabeth did not target Catholics because of their religious beliefs. She targeted those who broke the law by worhipping in private.
Making it law makes it okay? So its okay to suppress a certain people of faith so long as their is a law backing it? That is still persecution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
And, even if she had targeted Catholics because of their beliefs, I wouldn't blame her. Catholicism was an unpopular religion in England at the time, a religion which was viewed with suspicion by most Englishmen.
Of course you would. And suppose it wouldn't matter if I brought that Mary had every reason to be suspicious of Protestants for the same reason Elizabeth did? Of course that wasn't Mary's only reason for the persecutions, but it was definitely part of it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
You need to ask yourself WHY there is a history of anti-Catholicism in England. It certainly didn't spring up for no reason.
Of course it didn't spring from nothing, but why should you continue it 500 years later?

I'm not saying Elizabeth's persecutions were the same as Mary's, because they weren't. There were similar causes, but overall Elizabeth's can be seen in a better light because she made it lawful. But to say Elizabeth didn't persecute Catholics, is again, just ridiculous. Again, persecution is not just death, it is targeting a specific group because of their beliefs...and that's just what happened to Catholics during Elizabeth's reign.
Kiki19 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:03 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by viking View Post
It's not easy to simplify the Central Administration of Elizabethan government but I will do my best. This means I will leave some points that some might want amplified.
I'll start with three. The King's Bench which administered criminal justice, The Court of Common Pleas which settled suits between subjects and The Exchequer which dealt with revenue claims. So far, so good. However, soon, The Exchequer and King's Bench moved in to handle cases normally settled by Court of Common Pleas because cases in civil matters tended to deprive plaintiff of a remedy.
Next to be set up was the Court of Star Chamber which had members of the Privy Council in sitting. Although the Star Chamber and Privy Council were separate, the personnel was the same, except justices of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas also sat.Star Chamber had no rights over life or felony, nor breaches of public order.
Chancery possessed common law jurisdiction and was the secretariat which wrote, sealed and recorded everything dispatched under The Great Seal. It was the largest department of the state.
Add now the Courts of Requests which impinged on and was challenged by lawyers of he Court of Common Pleas.
Now to Councils of the North and the Marches of Wales who were regional equivalents lof the Central Administration.
Then there was Principal Secretary whose job was to control the rest of the realm's affairs especially security--the spy master.
Almost forgot Treasury which was responsible for the navy.Told you it was complex
Thanks, viking. It is complex, and interesting for all that.

Were Exchequer and Treasury the same? Did Treasury apply only to the Monarch's revenues and expenditures (Tonnage/Poundage; Royal Navy, etc.) and Exchequer the other sources of revenue? Just asking.

Local government from what I can tell was mostly left to the Counties/Shires, and they were expected to take care of themselves. Even the militia were funded locally with the gentry required to maintain equipment and local officials providing for clothing and conduct money, certainly when soldiers were conscripted.

Perhaps we can start a thread on the War and Military History Forum on how the Elizabethan state organized (and funded) a twenty year war against Spain. Can you say "Other Peoples Money?"
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 10:00 AM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiki19 View Post
I believe you'll find most modern historians agree with me, have you ever picked up a biography on Mary I?
Most historians agree with me that Elizabeth never persecuted Catholics. It was Mary who did the persecuting.

And I don't listen to many modern historians. A lot of modern historians were taught the PC history of the post 1960s and they try to change and twist history to suit their agenda. I've seen all those new books which are suddenly flooding into our bookstores all about Bloody Mary in which the authors have all desperately tried to change history to make it look as though Bloody Mary, rather than being a bloodthirsty bigot who pesecuted people because they had the audacity not to be Catholics as we have known for centuries, was actually a poor little innocent, misunderstood Catholic victim who the nasty, evil, baby-eating Anglicans have for centuries tried to prtray, wrongly, as a bloodthirsty bigot and who, actually, was quite a charming woman who wouldn't have hurt a fly.

Unfortunately for these new PC historians, most people don't believe a word they say and nobody buys their revisionist books.

Quote:
But she did tolerate most of them in the beginning, things changed after Wyatt's rebellion.
A rebellion which she had coming to her after she married a Catholic monarch despite the overwhelming objections of her people.

Quote:
Of course you would, it was all about keeping those nasty Catholics out of England.
It was about preventing a Catholic monarch taking to the Throne of England.

The Spanish would have done exactly the same, or worse, had someone tried to impose a Protestant monarch onto Spain.

Quote:
The choice to marry Philip was popular,
Either you are deliberately trying to change history or you are ignorant.

Mary's decision to marry a Catholic king - and a Spanish one at that - was hugely UNPOPULAR throughout England.

As it says here from someone who obviously knows more about this subject than you:

To protect her position, Mary decided to form an alliance with the Catholic monarchy in Spain. In 1554 Mary married Philip II, the eldest son of King Charles of Spain. The marriage was unpopular with the English people. They disliked the idea of having a foreign king. At that time the English particularly disliked the Spanish as they were seen as England's main rivals in Europe.

Soon after her marriage, Mary declared that the Pope was the only true head of the Church. This was followed by the execution of Thomas Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury and other Protestants who refused to accept the Pope as head of the Church. People were also punished if they were found reading bibles that had been printed in the English language.

Mary Tudor : Biography


Quote:
And I suppose every monarch who has rebellion against them "had it coming"
She married not only a Catholic monarch but also the monarch of hated Spain - a rival nation to England - against the wishes of her people. It was sheer provocation of her people and she had it coming.


Quote:
She wasn't bloodthristy
She executed 300 people in just five years, and she often loved to stuff green branches into the flames to that the burning would be slow and agonising. She was a bloodthirsty, bigoted tyrant and deserves her title as England's worst queen, if not worst monarch.


Quote:
Elizabeth persecuted Catholics, its right there in front of you.
Elizabeth allowed Catholics to practise their religion, unlike her sister who didn't allow Protestants to ptracise theirs.

I cannot see how Elizabeth can be said to have persecuted Catholics when they were allowed to practise their religion.

Quote:
Not allowing people to worship as the wish, that's a form a persecution.
She never allowed Catholics to "pray" in private because she was suspicious that, rather than praying, they were actually plotting against her.

And guess what? She was RIGHT. There WERE Catholics secretly plotting against her.

In December 1583, Elizabeth I wrote to the French Ambassador:-

“There are more than two hundred men of all ages who, at the instigation of the Jesuits, conspire to kill me.” And she wasn’t exaggerating.

In October 1583, Elizabeth I’s life was threatened by John Somerville, a Catholic from Warwickshire, who had been stirred up by the anti-Elizabeth I propaganda which the Jesuits were circulating. With the aim of seeing “her head on a pole, for she was a serpent and a viper”, Somerville set out to assassinate his Queen with a pistol. Fortunately, he was arrested, found guilty and sentenced to death before he could kill the Queen. He committed suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell in the Tower of London before his death sentence could be carried out.

Just a year later, Elizabeth I escaped death again when would-be assassin Dr William Parry, a Welsh MP who hid in the Queen’s garden at Richmond Palace, was “so daunted with the majesty of her presence in which he saw the image of her father, King Henry VIII” that he could not murder the Queen. In “How Fat Was Henry VIII?”, Raymond Lamont Brown writes of how it is not known what reason Parry had for his plot to assassinate the Queen, but he was known to William Cecil, Lord Burleigh and worked as a spy, so he claimed that he was acting as a regicide “in order to infiltrate papist circles”. However, he had been heard to boast that he would assassinate Elizabeth if he ever had the opportunity and some believed that he was acting on behalf of Mary, Queen of Scots, with a papal blessing. Parry was sentenced to death and ended his life on the gallows.

One of the most famous attempts on Elizabeth’s life was while the Queen was travelling by barge down the River Thames. A shot rang out and one of the Queen’s bargemen collapsed from a bullet wound which was clearly intended for the Queen. As Elizabeth passed him her handkerchief to put on his wound, She said “Be of good cheer, for you will never want. For the bullet was meant for me.”

Read more: The Elizabeth Files Plots Against Elizabeth I

And there were other Catholic plots against her: The Ridolfi Plot; The Throgmorton Plot; The Babington Plot.

So rather than "persecuting" the Catholics for not allowing them to pracise their faith in public, she was being SENSIBLE and reasonable in not allowing them to do so. There were so many Catholic plots aginst her that they just couldn't be trusted to attend "prayer meetings" in private. You can't blame her for taking this action. The only Catholics she executed were those who plotted against her. She did, however, allow Catholics to worship. They were allowed to do in churches, where they couldn't secretly plot against her. This was quite unlike her sister who did not allow Protestants to practise their religion at all.

Quote:
And suppose it wouldn't matter if I brought that Mary had every reason to be suspicious of Protestants for the same reason Elizabeth did?
Mary wasn't suspicious of Protestant plots against her. The only reason she callously murdered hundreds of innocent people were because they just haoppened to be of the "wrong" religion - i.e. not Catholics.

Quote:
Of course it didn't spring from nothing, but why should you continue it 500 years later?
If Mary persecuted Protestants during her reign because she was a bloodthirsty bigot I'm perfectly allowed to mention that fact.

Quote:
But to say Elizabeth didn't persecute Catholics, is again, just ridiculous.
Elizabeth I did not persecute Catholics. She allowed them to worship - unlike her sister in regards to Protestants. The only Catholics Eliabeth executed were those found to be plotting against her. Unlike Mary, she did not just round up hundreds of people off the streets and burn them at the stake because of their religion.
Brunel is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 12:48 PM   #34

Kiki19's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: The Carolinas
Posts: 1,209
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Most historians agree with me that Elizabeth never persecuted Catholics. It was Mary who did the persecuting.
No, they don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
And I don't listen to many modern historians. A lot of modern historians were taught the PC history of the post 1960s and they try to change and twist history to suit their agenda. I've seen all those new books which are suddenly flooding into our bookstores all about Bloody Mary in which the authors have all desperately tried to change history to make it look as though Bloody Mary, rather than being a bloodthirsty bigot who pesecuted people because they had the audacity not to be Catholics as we have known for centuries, was actually a poor little innocent, misunderstood Catholic victim who the nasty, evil, baby-eating Anglicans have for centuries tried to prtray, wrongly, as a bloodthirsty bigot and who, actually, was quite a charming woman who wouldn't have hurt a fly.

Unfortunately for these new PC historians, most people don't believe a word they say and nobody buys their revisionist books.
Where do you get your information???? Those aren't "PC" books, they're books by respected and even mainstream historians that have been around for the last couple decades. And that woman who was charming and truely wasn't inclined to violence was Mary Tudor...I'm sorry that bugs you so much, but that's the truth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Either you are deliberately trying to change history or you are ignorant.

Mary's decision to marry a Catholic king - and a Spanish one at that - was hugely UNPOPULAR throughout England.

As it says here from someone who obviously knows more about this subject than you:
That was a typo, it was supposed to to say "unpopular"
and you left out this part "These Protestant attempts to overthrow Mary made her feel insecure."






Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Elizabeth allowed Catholics to practise their religion, unlike her sister who didn't allow Protestants to ptracise theirs.

I cannot see how Elizabeth can be said to have persecuted Catholics when they were allowed to practise their religion.


She never allowed Catholics to "pray" in private because she was suspicious that, rather than praying, they were actually plotting against her.

And guess what? She was RIGHT. There WERE Catholics secretly plotting against her.

So rather than "persecuting" the Catholics for not allowing them to pracise their faith in public, she was being SENSIBLE and reasonable in not allowing them to do so. There were so many Catholic plots aginst her that they just couldn't be trusted to attend "prayer meetings" in private. You can't blame her for taking this action. The only Catholics she executed were those who plotted against her. She did, however, allow Catholics to worship. They were allowed to do in churches, where they couldn't secretly plot against her. This was quite unlike her sister who did not allow Protestants to practise their religion at all.
Once again, Persecution is not limited to death, look up the definition.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Mary wasn't suspicious of Protestant plots against her. The only reason she callously murdered hundreds of innocent people were because they just haoppened to be of the "wrong" religion - i.e. not Catholics.
From your source: "These Protestant attempts to overthrow Mary made her feel insecure."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
If Mary persecuted Protestants during her reign because she was a bloodthirsty bigot I'm perfectly allowed to mention that fact.
Yes, you've made that abundantly clear.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
Elizabeth I did not persecute Catholics. She allowed them to worship - unlike her sister in regards to Protestants. The only Catholics Eliabeth executed were those found to be plotting against her. Unlike Mary, she did not just round up hundreds of people off the streets and burn them at the stake because of their religion.
Once again, Persecution is not limited to death, look up the definition.

But now we're derailing the thread, and I'm sorry for that to the other posters.
Kiki19 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,246

How about we concentrate on the government of Elizabethan England instead of the politics?

Thanks.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:50 PM   #36

viking's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,461

Pikeshot, I have an apology to make. I was tired and got one point badly wrong. In sorting through the various departments I treated the "Treasury" as a separate department. At the time I had become interested in the Navy Board. With my poor handwriting of notes made years ago I read Treasury instead of Treasurer. As i said earlier, Exchequer handled finance.Treasurers served various boards.
The difficulties of neatly pigeonholing jobs in Tudor times is shown with the position of Principal Secretary.
Before Henry VIII the position was no more than the king's servant in charge of correspondence. Thomas Cromwell changed it to a position of power in the realm. After his death the position lost power until the two Cecil's and Walsingham exploited it's potential. This was not a case of the office making the man but the man making the office.

Last edited by viking; December 12th, 2012 at 07:17 PM.
viking is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
elizabethan, england, government


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is State Government better than Federal Government? Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 August 1st, 2011 01:06 AM
Elizabethan Warfare? Qymaen War and Military History 8 February 27th, 2011 06:48 AM
Questions for Elizabethan Era Experts and Buffs. HistoryFreak1912 Medieval and Byzantine History 15 February 4th, 2011 09:30 PM
Favourite Non-Shakepearean works from the Elizabethan/Jacobean period lackofhistoriography Art and Cultural History 0 October 24th, 2009 04:15 PM
Seattle Elizabethan fan Pablo New Users 10 November 27th, 2007 05:38 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.