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 April 10th, 2013, 07:15 AM   #21

Garry_Owen's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Thomond, Ireland.
Posts: 674

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
Interesting thread, is that the notorious Newgate Prison in the background?
The caption under the drawing states that it was Newgate. Some of the people depicted in the scene are obviosly prisoners who have just been liberated (shades of the Bastille!). One of these is having his shackles broken open by a blacksmith.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 10th, 2013, 07:17 AM   #22

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,472

The American Colonists were not too keen on Catholics either.
JSTOR: anti-popery in the American Colonies
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 07:20 AM   #23

Garry_Owen's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Thomond, Ireland.
Posts: 674

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackydee View Post
I agree with some of this. However, to suggest that the policies of bloody Mary had no long term affects on British anti-Catholicism would be wrong. Bloody Mary of course being just one of many anti Catholic propaganda opportunities British Protestants could call upon.

It's also worth noting that riots against Catholic Emancipation means there was an almost as equally strong feeling in favour of Catholic emancipation within the political establishment. The calls for emancipation had to come from somewhere.

Reading up on the subject now I notice that Catholics to be "emancipated" were also subject to renouncing Stuart claims to the throne. This suggests feelings of 1745 were still strong.
I agree with you, but it is a matter of degree. Protestants in Britain in the 1780s were not discriminated against by anyone for their religion alone. Catholics were. Protestants in Britain were not under threat for their religion as was the case under Mary in the 1550s.

The movement for relaxation of anti-Catholic disabilities did, of course, come from within Britain and the British establishment. Some of these felt the brunt of the rioters.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 07:42 AM   #24

Ulster Patriot's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry_Owen View Post
I agree with you, but it is a matter of degree. Protestants in Britain in the 1780s were not discriminated against by anyone for their religion alone. Catholics were. Protestants in Britain were not under threat for their religion as was the case under Mary in the 1550s.

The movement for relaxation of anti-Catholic disabilities did, of course, come from within Britain and the British establishment. Some of these felt the brunt of the rioters.

Maybe so but in Ireland and France that was not the case. The Gordon Riots were shocking but compared to the St Bartholomew's massacre they were minor.

The RC church is not just a church it was and is political. I think this should be taken into consideration when looking at these matters.
Ulster Patriot is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 08:56 AM   #25

Garry_Owen's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Thomond, Ireland.
Posts: 674

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulster Patriot View Post
Maybe so but in Ireland and France that was not the case. The Gordon Riots were shocking but compared to the St Bartholomew's massacre they were minor.

The RC church is not just a church it was and is political. I think this should be taken into consideration when looking at these matters.
What is your point about the Gordon Riots?

The St Bartholemews Day massacre happened in France, not Ireland.
The Gordon Riots happened in London, not Ireland.

The RC church was political?! So was the protestant religion! Maybe more so. Who put religion into politics? Roman Catholicism was never a state religion in Ireland, not like the established Protestant churches of Britain. Now, they were political.

My point is rather simple. The London mob of 1780, or anybody else, cannot use Bloody Mary's policy against Protestants as justification for their behaviour towards Catholics. Catholics were no threat to Protestants. No Protestants were discriminated against in Britain (or Ireland, for that matter) when the Gordon Riots occurred. The mob who attacked Catholics in London were not threatened by those Catholics. The situation was more akin to the German Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. The people, the homes and the businesses attacked were no threat to the German people. It was purely a venting of the endemic antisemitism of German society. The same was true of London in June 1780. The people who were attacked, despoiled, injured and killed were no threat to Protestants or Londoners, they were just suffering the brunt of the mob's anti-Catholic prejudice and it was every bit as ugly as Germany in November 1938.

The idea that anti-Catholicism in 1780 was still being fueled by the claims of the Stuart Pretenders to the British Crown is unfounded also. When the Old Pretender James 'III' died in 1766, 14 years before the Gordon Riots, the Pope refused to acknowledge his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, as King in succession to his father. Instead, the Papacy were resigned to the de facto situation and accepted the Protestant George III as the rightful ruler of Britain.

If you want to debate the rather unique history of Protestant and Catholics in Ireland, then open a new thread.

Last edited by Garry_Owen; April 10th, 2013 at 08:59 AM.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 09:24 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Brigadoon
Posts: 4,530

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry_Owen View Post
What is your point about the Gordon Riots?

The St Bartholemews Day massacre happened in France, not Ireland.
The Gordon Riots happened in London, not Ireland.

The RC church was political?! So was the protestant religion! Maybe more so. Who put religion into politics? Roman Catholicism was never a state religion in Ireland, not like the established Protestant churches of Britain. Now, they were political.

My point is rather simple. The London mob of 1780, or anybody else, cannot use Bloody Mary's policy against Protestants as justification for their behaviour towards Catholics. Catholics were no threat to Protestants. No Protestants were discriminated against in Britain (or Ireland, for that matter) when the Gordon Riots occurred. The mob who attacked Catholics in London were not threatened by those Catholics. The situation was more akin to the German Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. The people, the homes and the businesses attacked were no threat to the German people. It was purely a venting of the endemic antisemitism of German society. The same was true of London in June 1780. The people who were attacked, despoiled, injured and killed were no threat to Protestants or Londoners, they were just suffering the brunt of the mob's anti-Catholic prejudice and it was every bit as ugly as Germany in November 1938.

The idea that anti-Catholicism in 1780 was still being fueled by the claims of the Stuart Pretenders to the British Crown is unfounded also. When the Old Pretender James 'III' died in 1766, 14 years before the Gordon Riots, the Pope refused to acknowledge his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, as King in succession to his father. Instead, the Papacy were resigned to the de facto situation and accepted the Protestant George III as the rightful ruler of Britain.

If you want to debate the rather unique history of Protestant and Catholics in Ireland, then open a new thread.
All of this may be true. But how crucial was Bonnie Prince Charlies claim to the throne reliant on the Pope? I'd say not overly crucial. The fact that Catholic Emancipation in 1780 was linked to renouncing Stuart claims to the throne suggests it Stuart kingship was still a real(or perceived) fear in 1780. Though I have no doubt the opposition riots were also fuelled by all sorts of sinister and dubious motives.

We all know European power politics was not solely religious based. William of Orange was in fact backed by the Pope against the Catholic James James II. This does not white wash the fact that earlier and later Popes had different geo-political policies. To that extent your claim that Catholicism was not linked to politics is hard to believe.

That a Papal blessing was not given to Henry VIII to divorce was a purely political move. It had no ounce of religious motivation behind it. Again, your claim that Catholicism has had little or no political motive is hard to sustain. It had been doing so for centuries before the 1500's. Study factional fighting almost anywhere in Western Europe before 1500 and very often you'll find you the Pope of the day taking a side politically.
jackydee is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 09:24 AM   #27

Ulster Patriot's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry_Owen View Post
What is your point about the Gordon Riots?

The St Bartholemews Day massacre happened in France, not Ireland.
The Gordon Riots happened in London, not Ireland.

The RC church was political?! So was the protestant religion! Maybe more so. Who put religion into politics? Roman Catholicism was never a state religion in Ireland, not like the established Protestant churches of Britain. Now, they were political.

My point is rather simple. The London mob of 1780, or anybody else, cannot use Bloody Mary's policy against Protestants as justification for their behaviour towards Catholics. Catholics were no threat to Protestants. No Protestants were discriminated against in Britain (or Ireland, for that matter) when the Gordon Riots occurred. The mob who attacked Catholics in London were not threatened by those Catholics. The situation was more akin to the German Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. The people, the homes and the businesses attacked were no threat to the German people. It was purely a venting of the endemic antisemitism of German society. The same was true of London in June 1780. The people who were attacked, despoiled, injured and killed were no threat to Protestants or Londoners, they were just suffering the brunt of the mob's anti-Catholic prejudice and it was every bit as ugly as Germany in November 1938.

The idea that anti-Catholicism in 1780 was still being fueled by the claims of the Stuart Pretenders to the British Crown is unfounded also. When the Old Pretender James 'III' died in 1766, 14 years before the Gordon Riots, the Pope refused to acknowledge his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, as King in succession to his father. Instead, the Papacy were resigned to the de facto situation and accepted the Protestant George III as the rightful ruler of Britain.

If you want to debate the rather unique history of Protestant and Catholics in Ireland, then open a new thread.
I wasn't the first to mention Ireland but I think its fair comment to make and to see the Gordon Riots against a background of what was happening in another part of the Kingdom and on the continent.

The fear of an RC takeover and the imposing of an Inquisition was there from the time of Elizabeth 1 and before. What was going on elsewhere helped to fuel the fears of Protestant England and its no surprise that the Gordon Riots took place. I agree that these fears could have been exploited by the likes of Gordon and others for their own ends.
Ulster Patriot is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 09:33 AM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry_Owen View Post
What is your point about the Gordon Riots?

The St Bartholemews Day massacre happened in France, not Ireland.
The Gordon Riots happened in London, not Ireland.

The RC church was political?! So was the protestant religion! Maybe more so. Who put religion into politics? Roman Catholicism was never a state religion in Ireland, not like the established Protestant churches of Britain. Now, they were political.
Of course they were both political, but Protestantism was political in support of the Monarch, the Catholics refused to accept the monarch as the supreme head of the Church in England, instead insisting that a foreign monarch, the pope, was the head of the Church in England. It seems most understandable that in the 18th Century typical Londoners would be suspicious of anyone who would declare loyalty to a foreign prince over an English King.
constantine is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 11:48 AM   #29

Ulster Patriot's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Of course they were both political, but Protestantism was political in support of the Monarch, the Catholics refused to accept the monarch as the supreme head of the Church in England, instead insisting that a foreign monarch, the pope, was the head of the Church in England. It seems most understandable that in the 18th Century typical Londoners would be suspicious of anyone who would declare loyalty to a foreign prince over an English King.
Yes I believe that the pope said it would be alright to kill Elizabeth as she was a heretic. And then of course we had the Gunpowder Plot which came near to blowing up parliament. Moving into the James the 2nd era we had the promotion of Roman Catholicism by the king and his notorious sidekick Judge Jefferies. So you have all this going on until the Glorious Revolution and even later when Charles (bonnie prince) made his bid for the throne and marched into England with his army and getting as far south as Derby.

Is it any wonder that the people got a bit jittery.

On a side note the old black and white movie Captain Blood is set against the background of James the 2nd reign and how those who opposed him were dealt with. In Captain Blood's case he was threw out of the country. OK a bit of Hollywood spin but it gives some idea of how things were.
Ulster Patriot is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 12:10 PM   #30

Garry_Owen's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Thomond, Ireland.
Posts: 674

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
... the Catholics refused to accept the monarch as the supreme head of the Church in England, ...
They didn't refuse to accept the monarch as king, though, did they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
... instead insisting that a foreign monarch, the pope, was the head of the Church in England.
They did not insist on anything. They merely refused to acknowledge the king as head of the church which is not surprising since, as Catholics, their head of the church was the Pope!
Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
It seems most understandable that in the 18th Century typical Londoners would be suspicious of anyone who would declare loyalty to a foreign prince over an English King.
Where did they declare this? It was not anything they did that made them traitors.

The truth is that Catholics were as loyal to the Crown as anybody else but they were put in an impossible situation by being asked to take an oath that effectively denied their own religion and beliefs. No Catholic could take such an oath. Many loyal Catholics found themselves being branded traitors in the country of their birth. Many Catholics died fighting for that monarch in a country that was anti-Catholic, treated them as second-class subjects and discriminated against them. These people posed no threat. It was all hysterical propaganda whipped up by self-interest or, in Gordon's case, mental derangement. The fact that the London mob exploded into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism in 1780 had nothing to do with oaths or religion really. These people were acting out their prejudices in brutal ignorance. That is all. There was no clear and present danger, no real threat.

Last edited by Garry_Owen; April 10th, 2013 at 12:19 PM.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
george, gordon, gordon riots, lord



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did George Washington really add "so help me God" to his oath of office? Mick Jagger American History 12 June 3rd, 2016 10:51 PM
George G. Meade, "The Old Snapping Turtle" Viperlord American History 59 April 6th, 2013 08:53 AM
Gordon Rhea Salah History Book Reviews 1 August 18th, 2012 06:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.