ping
Did George Washington make the list?
George Galloway is my nominee for the 21st Century.
This always cracks me up. A saint cannot be a catholic, they must be a Christian only. And you can't make someone a saint, they have to live their life obedient to the Gospel of Christ.
I'm sure this is a scandal. Becket stood up for the church not answering criminally for it's wrongdoings and this is a good thing? Presumably? (gee, where did pedophiles get the idea they might be sheltered...) The Britons made a decision on what they determined was Catholic Meddling and threw Rome out of the British Isles. I'm sure that's the generic version of it; but, it was their right to do so. Apparently, some people are still upset about it and trying to manufacture offense over it even now. To be sure, killing Becket was probably bad. On the other hand, we weren't there. And people often tend to "obscure" the facts for argument's sake. Was Mary, Queen of Scotts, ever canonized?
Wow, no Guy Fawkes? How did he not make the list?
This is list is ridiculous. The whole process of making such lists is silly. It must have been a slow news day at the BBC.
What about Harris, the mad bomber of World War II?
What about Edward Longshanks?
What about any number of the Plantagenets (many of them my ancestors!)?
The other side of the coin is that the whole process of picking saints is silly. Let God judge, and let not men try to second guess, or usurp Him. Anyway, the faithful should not be praying for intercession to dead people.
Interesting post, thanks. Aethelred the Unready was one of the all-time worst, in my opinion. A great appeaser, far ahead of his time.
It doesn't look like there's much more to it than that, though the historian in question may have a sharp secular axe to grind against a British saint. I don't know enough about Becket and medieval Britain to have an opinion, but it does looke like a low blow to someone who stood against a centralized authority.
Mosely was an easy, too obvious choice, but a good case could certainly be made for him as worst 20th century Briton. He wasn't much compared to 20th century villains in other countries, but maybe that's only because Hitler didn't take over Britain. If events had been a little different Oswald Mosely could have been Britain's Quisling or Petain.
In terms of actual effect on the country there could well have been worse Britons than Mosely in those days. Was he really worse than a Philby or Blunt, for example? But as the leader of a movement, Mosely gets more blame than a run-of-the-mill political agitator or follower of Hitler or Stalin or spy. Given their talents, advantages and position more was expected of Mosely, or Edward VIII, than of less exalted figures, just as more was expected of Blunt or Maclean than of a streetcorner agitator. It's harder to excuse the rot at the top of society than at the middle or bottom, at least until things get out of hand down there.
The BBC "survey" is a pretty silly enterprise though. If Cumberland, the ravager of Scotland, was the worst Briton of the 18th century, why not name another imperialist for one of the other centuries? Why settle for Jack the Ripper, an easy -- though understandable -- choice? Why not Cromwell or the Rhodes, those who dithered while Ireland starved or conquered China for the opium trade?
"Eureka! I've got it! I'll pick on a Catholic...Catholic bashing is so in this year!"
"Hmmm...maybe I should get the grey touched up....a tan...yes, that's it, I'll get a tan!"
I don't really think she's particularly malign, I just want to see some pictures...
BBC is evil. I nominate everyone who works there as the worst human beings on the planet.
George Galloway should be listed as the worst Briton of the 21st century.
St. Thomas Becket...except for breaking the vows of poverty, chastity and humilty, he made a great priest.
Why did it take four knights to kill him?
