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, 11:56 AM   #31

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry_Owen View Post
They didn't refuse to accept the monarch as king, though, did they?
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!

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.

What was this oath? What were the words which they objected to? I ask in ignorance.
Ulster Patriot is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 10th, 2013, 12:59 PM   #32

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

House of Commons 1875

Mr Whalley

Cardinal Manning said that they (the Jesuits) were the leaders of the great Catholic mission in this country, and that the object of that Mission was to break and bond the Imperial power of England into submission to the Papacy. The hon. Member at once challenged him, and, speaking from recollection, he replied that these words were published in The Tablet, of July 20, 1872. He found that was so on the authority of the "Monthly Letter of the Protestant Alliance." [Laughter.] He was not himself a member of the Protestant Alliance, but many Members of that House belonged to that body, and he had never heard any statement of theirs successfully called in question. The authority he had quoted seemed to suggest some amusement, and if the hon. Member was not satisfied he would afford him a further opportunity of verifying it from the organ of the Protestant Alliance. These were the words— Writing of the Jesuits, who, as Cardinal Manning stated, were now at the head of the great Catholic mission in this land."—[Tablet, July 20, 1872.] As to the other words he quoted, they were somewhat abbreviated from a similar extract from a reported speech of Cardinal Manning; but the House, if they would allow him to read it, would judge whether it was fairly given. He said— We have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and rule, an Imperial race. We have to deal with a will that reigns throughout the world as the will of old Rome once reigned. We have to bend and break a will which nations and kingdoms have found inflexible and invincible. Were heresy conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the world: all its lines meet here; and therefore in England the Church must be gathered in her strength. That was the best justification he could offer, and it appeared to him to be sufficient. If, however, the hon. Member desired any further information and would put his Question on the Paper, he would endeavour to satisfy him.

Mr O' Connor Power

The occasion on which Cardinal Manning used the words was a meeting in 1859, of the Provincial Council of Westminster, at which the Cardinal delivered a sermon that had no reference to the Jesuits, but which referred to the strictly spiritual missions of the Catholic Church generally to bend to the reception of the truth the will of the English race. He was addressing the English Catholic Bishops, and he said— And, lastly, it is good for us to be here in England. It is yours, right rev. Fathers, to subjugate and to subdue, to bend and to break, the will of an Imperial race "—— ["Hear, hear!"]—he hoped hon. Members would wait until the sentence had been entirely read before they expressed an opinion on it— To bend and to break the will of an Imperial race, the will which, as the will of Rome of old, rules over nations and peoples, invincible and inflexible. You have to rear the House of Wisdom, which was fallen, and to do this you have now, as the Apostles then, to gather from the Spiritual quarry the stones which shall build up the House of God. You have to call the legionaries and the tribunes, the patricians and the people of a conquering race, and to subdue, change, transform, transfigure them, one by one, to the likeness of the Son of God. He wanted to point out that these words did not bear the meaning which was given to them by the hon. Member; but——["Order, order!"]
Ulster Patriot is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 01:12 PM   #33

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 13,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackydee View Post
I think it is, yes. The details of the drawing I am unsure of. I simply know ive seen it a few times. I think the man standing aloft in the centre is supposed to be Lord George Gordon himself(don't quote me on this however)

I recognised it from a thing radio 4 had a while ago about The Gaol. Jack Shepherd also had a few dazzling escapes from there I think.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sheppard]Jack Sheppard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Apparently Gordon was a naval officer.
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 01:35 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,497

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.
The "rightful" monarchs of England had been kicked out partly for being Catholic. George I was like 30th in line for the throne, but the first Protestant in line. Catholics were assumed to be Jacobites and not loyal to the king or government.
betgo is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 02:15 PM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Brigadoon
Posts: 4,434

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
I recognised it from a thing radio 4 had a while ago about The Gaol. Jack Shepherd also had a few dazzling escapes from there I think.

Jack Sheppard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently Gordon was a naval officer.
Jack Sheppard's story is incredible.
jackydee is offline  
Old April 10th, 2013, 04:37 PM   #36
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 18

Gary_Owen: I feel the the anti-papist trend of 17th and 18th century England was a far deeper, more complicated issue than you give it credit for, more significant than base rabble rousing and religious prejudice would suggest. An argument can be made (and has been by scholars such as Linda Colley) that the English, continuously competing with France throughout the Eighteenth Century, developed a national identity, to whatever (debatable) degree such a consciousness was capable during that time period, founded, at least in part, upon an antithetical differentiation with the French enemy. You hit upon a portion of this dynamic, with the rabid English anti-papism, but this was part of a much larger set of contrasts: English 'masculinity' vs. French 'effeminancy', English freedoms and political virtues vs. the specter of French absolutism, and of course English protestantism vs. French Catholicism: all of these elements were tied together and inseperable, part of what it meant to be English, as opposed to what it meant to be French. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that this was the reality for either side, merely the ideology of the period). Protestantism was a central aspect of this larger English identity, intertwined with those other qualities and institutions which defined English virtue, and itself a bulwark against French cultural and political encroachment. By this reading, the relaxation of the Papist acts may have appeared as an attack upon those very qualities that defined what it meant to be English: this would have been to many, at the very least, insulting, and perhaps for some, truly threatening.

This is not to defend the rioters or deny the role of prejudice, especially as it pertains to the actual outbreaks of violence, but rather to suggest that there might well have been far deeper ideological, perhaps even structural, factors at play.

Last edited by Squirrelfang; April 10th, 2013 at 06:14 PM.
Squirrelfang is offline  
Old April 11th, 2013, 10:34 AM   #37

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulster Patriot View Post
What was this oath? What were the words which they objected to? I ask in ignorance.
Ulster Patriot, it was Consantine above who made oblique references to the oaths of allegiance, alleging that Catholics refused to swear allegiance to the monarch and preferred instead to declare their loyalty to a foreign prince. The oaths in question are discussed at the following link. Although a 'Catholic' website I hope you will read it for the sake of historical balance and without suffering an apoplectic fit. All I can say by way of mitigation is that I think the content is factually correct.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: English Post-Reformation Oaths

I hope you celebrated your Easter enjoyably.
Garry_Owen is offline  
Old April 11th, 2013, 10:47 AM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Brigadoon
Posts: 4,434

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelfang View Post
Gary_Owen: I feel the the anti-papist trend of 17th and 18th century England was a far deeper, more complicated issue than you give it credit for, more significant than base rabble rousing and religious prejudice would suggest. An argument can be made (and has been by scholars such as Linda Colley) that the English, continuously competing with France throughout the Eighteenth Century, developed a national identity, to whatever (debatable) degree such a consciousness was capable during that time period, founded, at least in part, upon an antithetical differentiation with the French enemy. You hit upon a portion of this dynamic, with the rabid English anti-papism, but this was part of a much larger set of contrasts: English 'masculinity' vs. French 'effeminancy', English freedoms and political virtues vs. the specter of French absolutism, and of course English protestantism vs. French Catholicism: all of these elements were tied together and inseperable, part of what it meant to be English, as opposed to what it meant to be French. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that this was the reality for either side, merely the ideology of the period). Protestantism was a central aspect of this larger English identity, intertwined with those other qualities and institutions which defined English virtue, and itself a bulwark against French cultural and political encroachment. By this reading, the relaxation of the Papist acts may have appeared as an attack upon those very qualities that defined what it meant to be English: this would have been to many, at the very least, insulting, and perhaps for some, truly threatening.

This is not to defend the rioters or deny the role of prejudice, especially as it pertains to the actual outbreaks of violence, but rather to suggest that there might well have been far deeper ideological, perhaps even structural, factors at play.
Interesting post, thanks.
jackydee is offline  
Old April 11th, 2013, 10:49 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Brigadoon
Posts: 4,434

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Just when I think I have a good grip of the Riot and the current behind it,
someone posts something new for me to ponder. I had no idea the Riot was
so complicated.
In conclusion, none of us have any freakin idea why the riots occurred. I hope we have helped you with our accumulated expertise.
jackydee is offline  
Old April 11th, 2013, 10:50 AM   #40

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelfang View Post
Gary_Owen: I feel the the anti-papist trend of 17th and 18th century England was a far deeper, more complicated issue than you give it credit for, more significant than base rabble rousing and religious prejudice would suggest. An argument can be made (and has been by scholars such as Linda Colley) that the English, continuously competing with France throughout the Eighteenth Century, developed a national identity, to whatever (debatable) degree such a consciousness was capable during that time period, founded, at least in part, upon an antithetical differentiation with the French enemy. You hit upon a portion of this dynamic, with the rabid English anti-papism, but this was part of a much larger set of contrasts: English 'masculinity' vs. French 'effeminancy', English freedoms and political virtues vs. the specter of French absolutism, and of course English protestantism vs. French Catholicism: all of these elements were tied together and inseperable, part of what it meant to be English, as opposed to what it meant to be French. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that this was the reality for either side, merely the ideology of the period). Protestantism was a central aspect of this larger English identity, intertwined with those other qualities and institutions which defined English virtue, and itself a bulwark against French cultural and political encroachment. By this reading, the relaxation of the Papist acts may have appeared as an attack upon those very qualities that defined what it meant to be English: this would have been to many, at the very least, insulting, and perhaps for some, truly threatening.

This is not to defend the rioters or deny the role of prejudice, especially as it pertains to the actual outbreaks of violence, but rather to suggest that there might well have been far deeper ideological, perhaps even structural, factors at play.
Squirrelfang, I am very much aware of the ideas you speak about but I think that French 'effeminacy', etc., were far from the mind of Lord George Gordon and the London mob when they went on the rampage. I understand that you are not defending that mob but you are stretching it a bit to say that, as they pillaged, burned and assaulted Catholics in London's Moorfield area they may have had some sense of themselves as Protestant Englishmen exercising a 'freedom' that the French Catholic peasantry lacked under their absolute monarchy. They acted no differently from the Paris mob. But I acknowledge there is some truth in what you say about Englishmen generally of the period, although, as you say, to what degree is debateable.
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 09:51 PM
George G. Meade, "The Old Snapping Turtle" Viperlord American History 59 April 6th, 2013 07:53 AM
Gordon Rhea Salah History Book Reviews 1 August 18th, 2012 05:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.