Posted on 01/02/2006 12:46:30 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 01/02/2006 12:58:14 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
A Catholic saint and martyr has been nominated as one of the nastiest villains in British history.
St. Thomas Becket, a 12th-century archbishop of Canterbury, was among 10 "worst Britons" of the last millennium, selected by a group of British historians. The saint, whose feast is celebrated Dec. 29, was chosen by John Hudson, a professor at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, because he divided England in a way that was "unnecessary and self-indulgent."
"He was a founder of gesture politics with the most acute of eyes for what would now be called the photo opportunity," said Hudson, a specialist in early medieval English and French history.
"He was also greedy," he said in BBC History magazine Dec. 27. "Those who share my prejudice against Becket may consider his assassination in Canterbury Cathedral Dec. 29, 1170, a fittingly grisly end."
BBC History magazine compiled the list after asking 10 historians to name their pick for "worst Briton."
St. Thomas was hacked to death by four knights who allegedly heard King Henry II of England ask, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"
His death ended a protracted dispute with the monarchy over the limits of civil law in the life of the church. The king, for example, wanted to stop bishops from leaving England without his permission, to stop them from appealing to Rome without his consent and to punish criminal clerics under the civil law even if they had been dealt with by church courts. St. Thomas spent six years in exile but was murdered within a month of returning to England. He was canonized two years later.
Father Nicholas Schofield, the archivist of the Archdiocese of Westminster and a history graduate from Oxford University, said he was surprised that St. Thomas was included on the list.
"It's always misrepresentative to see history simply in terms of goodies and baddies," he told Catholic News Service Dec. 29. "Like all of us, Thomas Becket had his weaknesses. He could be proud and bad-tempered and, especially in his early years, he lived a life of great luxury.
"But on becoming archbishop of Canterbury he changed his way of life, showed exemplary piety and gave his life for the defense and liberty of the church. Because of this he became the patron of English clergy," the priest said. "In an age of such bloodshed and low esteem for human life, I would have thought there were many more convincing candidates for Britain's worst 12th-century villain."
David Musgrove, editor of the magazine, told BBC News Dec. 27 that deciding on the worst Britons was "not an easy choice."
"We left the criteria up to the 10 historians we spoke to, and it's their definitions of wickedness that give us such a diverse selection of figures on our list of evilness," he said.
The list of villains, which is made up of one from each century, included another Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Thomas Arundel, who in the 15th century persecuted Catholic heretics.
It also included Titus Oates, a former Anglican minister who made up a story about a Jesuit-led plot to kill King Charles II, which, from 1678 to 1680, led to the deaths of 26 innocent Catholics.
Oates was nominated by John Adamson, a fellow of Peterhouse College, Cambridge University, because he "was in a league of his own, in the depths of his vileness and the scale of his evil."
The list also included Richard Rich, an ambitious lawyer who in the 16th century gave evidence against St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, which led to their convictions and executions for treason.
It includes Jack the Ripper, the serial killer who preyed on prostitutes in London; King John, who is remembered from the 13th century as " clearly one of the worst kings in English history"; and the Duke of Cumberland, the younger brother of King George II who became known as "the Butcher" after putting down the Catholic Jacobite rebellion of in the 18th century with the massacre at Culloden Moor, Scotland.
Oswald Mosley was named the worst Briton of the 20th century. He was the founder of the British Union of Fascists. Eadric Streona, who betrayed King Aethelred to the Danes, was named as the worst Briton of the 11th century.
The worst of the 14th century was named as Hugh Despenser, who grew rich by grabbing land in South Wales and ruthlessly slaughtering his enemies.
They contested Catholic claim to being "Christ's Church". The Catholics were largely Johnny come latelys. The Culdees had been in Britain since the days of the Keltoi (Celts) and survived well into the 1500s if memory serves. They withstood the teaching of Catholics as did the many in the Scottish moutnains who kept the Celtic Christian fait seperately yet identically. From their point of view, Rome flooded Britain with priests and Bishops; but, as history tells it, the Scotts were 400 years behind Europe technologically but well ahead of it for church corruption by the 1600s - owing to Catholicism.
By the time of the reformation, the reformers were reinforcing the culdees. This is why the reform in england was from the crown down and in Scotland was from the people up. The people believed with the Culdees. Ultimately Rome was evicted. Wishart's prophecy of the death of the Cardinal that had him burnt at the stake might as well have been a prophecy against the Roman church itself. His prophecy was fulfilled and the men that killed the cardinal lived in his home for 2 years. Later, when the people of Britain throw Roman Catholicism out, their churches were confiscated, purified and lived in by Christ's church instead.. that's their history.
As for what right, probably the same right as was possessed by the monarch that threw the celtic pagans out. The right invested in heads of state by God. Scripturally, it is God who seats and unseats leaders, not Rome. That would be the teaching of Knox and all before him back to the Culdees because that is what the scripture says. Rome didn't respect that in their eyes anymore than they respected the biblical pronouncement to leave and dust your feet when rejected. A group that doesn't respect what it claims are it's own tenets won't respect anything. They knew that too.
The issues aren't complex and the British histories are pretty clear on the matters. I have some 40 hours of historical background that I've listened to several times.
The people wanted rid of Roman 'blasphemy' and the crown relented to save it's own neck from the crowds on the one hand and to stop roman meddling in the affairs of British politics on the other.
I've tried to answer from my understanding and in brief; but, it is not a subject that is dealt easily with in brief because so much transpired. The british histories and the histories recorded by the churches of Britain acquit the matters pretty well. But, I imagine you know many of the events colored through the protest of Rome and in light of Rome's bias. You seem to think Rome had some right in Britain. Britain begged to differ. Apparently they were right.
Isn't that ironic? Saint Thomas Beckett is named one of the worst Britons for creating unnecessary "division" on the island, but King Henry the VIII, who split from the Holy Catholic Church so he could get divorced, form an official state Church of England and murder those opposed to it would not be mentioned?
Which is very funny "history" in view of the fact that Catholicism survived in the Scottish Highlands long after it had been forcibly exterminated in the rest of Great Britain. Or do you think those lairds -- Protestant and Catholic -- who fought for Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1745 didn't know what they were doing?
You read Foxe's Book of Martyrs and think you've studied history, so why am I surprised ...
That will teach them!
>>That really ought to get their blood pressure up<<
Oooo, that would do it!
The point is, don't take these folks seriously mom. They're not really looking for the Truth anyway.
Jeffreys was a sadist. Lord Macaulay's description of the fall of Jeffreys is excellent.
I know you are exactly right.
It's sad that the Catholics are such fair game.
Many Saints are still dead. Many saints live among us, some to be ultimately named Saints by various and varying sanctifying bodies after their demise.
The Culdees is it, then? Father Knox is doing 500 RPM in his grave under the cold peat.
by telling the truth? I don't think so.
But thanks for your candid opinion.
<< The two of you are making the same mistake. If Becket makes the list for an idea, then certainly Chamberlain deserves notice for a terrible miscalculation. I challenge you to come up with a more worthy 20th century figure. And you have not yet done so. >>
Some might consider it to have been a mistake to have included the Good Bishop, I certainly do - and have no desre to repeat the error.
And some - and count me in - might also believe Clement Atlee, whom I did suggest a more worthy Twentieth Century figure than Mr Chamberlain, to be that century's most egregious villain.
We Americans, Winston Churchill counted as only half among US, fairly quickly tidied up after Mr Chaimberlain's too close representation of his effectively effete electorate.
The Atlee Gang, on the other hand, absolutely put the skids under once-great Britain's last slender grip on greatness and set it into the spiral into which it ever more rapidly accelerates and from which it will never recover.
Since Atlee no British politician, the much-vaunted Snatcher "Hong-Kong" Thatcher among them and with only the momentary exception of the Honorable John Enoch Powell, has dared to to attempt to stem the wilful criminal hemmorhaging and bloodletting of the lives' energies and blood and treasure of Britain's few remaining innovative, creative, industrious and productive subjects and the squandering of their confiscated wealth upon the every bloody rubbish product and self-serving vote-buying "social service" of the collective "minds" of those who lust after unearned power and of those [Permanent, domestic and Euro-peon Neo-Soviet "'civil' 'servants'"] who've actually achieved such power.
So my money, London to a brick, stays on Atlee.
Blessings - Brian
George Galloway should be listed as the worst Briton of the 21st century.
<< by telling the truth? I don't think so.
But thanks for your candid opinion. >>
I'll bet you are most welcome to his opinion.
After all if one sheep is lost a ninety nine are safe, a presiio9 will always go after the lost bigot ... um sheep.
And I'll also bet that Jesus, the Christ and you would pass each other in the street without a flicker of recogition passing between the pair of you.
As is so often the case when "the Jesus" of "The 'Christians'" encounters Jesus, the Christ.
Blessings - Brian
Did you have a point of any measurable value, or did you feel that shaping what I said was your only option? Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Brits. It's their history. If you can't suck it up after they kicked you out, after all these centuries, that's your problem.
I was asked a question that seemed to beg an opinion. I attempted to summarize long events into an understandable digest that takes rather longer to get a good grip on - not for complexity; but, for volume. But, I'm sure that Rome exterminating folks they didn't want to hear from "in the name of Christ" played a huge role in getting Catholicism extricated from the Britains.. which seems to be your main questions. Knox didn't shy from the sword. Perhaps he should have; but, he fed you like for like which you find injurious.
Do tell.
Oliver Cromwell set the seeds for constitutional democracy, introduced the principles of executive accountability and restored the teeth of the legislature.
He opposed the execution of Charles I and was not present at either Drogheda or Wexford, although Ireland was undoubtedly the biggest stain on the reputation of man who undoubtedly deserves to be counted as one of the greatest Britons of the past millennium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.