Skip to comments.How a Protestant spin machine hid the truth about the English Reformation
Posted on 05/25/2014 10:52:33 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
. . . . For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church, and up and down the country Tudor people preferred plain-speaking, rational men like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin. Henry VIII achieved what all sane English and Welsh people had long desired an excuse to break away from an anachronistic subjugation to the ridiculous medieval strictures of the Church.
, . . But the last 30 years have seen a revolution in Reformation research. Leading scholars have started looking behind the pronouncements of the religious revolutions leaders Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and beyond the parliamentary pronouncements and the great sermons. Instead, they have begun focusing on the records left by ordinary English people. This bottom up approach to history has undoubtedly been the most exciting development in historical research in the last 50 years. It has taken us away from what the rulers want us to know, and steered us closer towards what actually happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Exciting topic, very pertinent to debate.
You’re right; thing is, that I think that without the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans never would have had the revolution that culminated in beheading Charles I, throwing out the direct legitimate Stuart line, and bringing in the Hanovers if only because they were Protestant.
Just think, all that chaos because Anne Boleyn didn’t put out for Henry VIII.
It is. For decades now historians - Catholic, Protestant and those of no particular belief - have admitted that the story of the Protestant Reformation in England is little more than a constructed fraud.
Eamon Duffy showed that to be the case, conclusively, many years ago: http://www.amazon.com/The-Stripping-Altars-Traditional-1400-1580/dp/0300108281
This guy writes crypto thrillers. He also takes a shot at bashing the Iraq war.
Nothing about the revival that was taking place during the reformation which replaced ritual with the Bible. I don’t think I will believing what he says.
So what’s so righteous about sticking to the Stuarts.
if dynastic succession is so holy why did we drop it in the US.
Thank-you for your research and links. God Bless.
I’ll agree that the Reformation was an imperfect start.
“...all that chaos because Anne Boleyn didnt put out for Henry VIII.”
It was actually the fertility failure with Katherine of Aragon that led to the chaos.
As for Anne Boleyn, she too failed to bear a son, but she was the mother of Elizabeth I, inarguably one of Britan’s greatest monarchs. For her trouble she got her head chopped off.
Nevertheless I agree, an awful lot of the trouble in the world today has it’s roots in Henry VIII, the original “self-actualizer”.,
Quote from the article:
“In addition to the dramatic loss of these cherished protector figures, the parishes were also deprived of around 40 to 50 saints holy days (holidays) a year, when no servile work was allowed from noon the previous day. This was a dramatic change to the rhythms of life the country had known for centuries. The reformers were keenly aware this would boost economic activity, and welcomed the increase in output it would bring.”
Protestantism was supported by governments because, like Communism, it amassed wealth through theft and squeezing the peasants ever harder. In the process some Protestant governments banned begging which effectively starved out those viewed as unproductive.
“But by the late 1400s and early 1500s, religion had been taken over by the people most notably in the form of the religious guilds that had mushroomed in every parish. For instance, Kings Lynn had over 70; Bodmin had more than 40.”
Yep, and the participation of common lay people in the religious life of the parish all but disappeared with the coming of Protestantism having been reduced to only formal worship services that everyone had to attend by law.
“It was actually the fertility failure with Katherine of Aragon that led to the chaos.”
A woman who gets pregnant 9 times has no problem with fertility.
“According to J.J. Scarisbrick, Catherine of Aragon had several miscarriages, three infants who were either stillborn or died immediately after birth (two of them males), two infants who died within a few weeks of birth (one of them a boy) and one girl, Princess Mary. Dewhurst makes the point that several must mean three or more so Scarisbrick is crediting Catherine with a total of nine pregnancies, only one of which gave Henry a living heir and it was only a girl. Hester Chapman writes of Catherine having a total of seven pregnancies, Neville Williams writes of how Henry was mindful of earlier miscarriages in his second year of marriage to Catherine, John Bowle writes of six pregnancies and A.F. Pollard suggests a total of around ten pregnancies. If Catherine had nine unsuccessful pregnancies it is little wonder that Henry felt that their marriage was cursed!”
“Ill agree that the Reformation was an imperfect start.”
Its end is no better either: atheism, communism, hedonism, skepticism, utilitarianism, totalitarianism.
While I am an American and certainly no authority on British history, I have had a few courses and always understood that Henry’s break with Rome had nothing to do with the desires of the common people, but everything to do with his desire for a son. King’s generally don’t take into account the desires of their subjects; that is the nature of Earthly kings. Alfred the Great may have been an exception. The “spin” in this article is the author starting off with the nonsense that historical opinion has always been that Henry VIII was only yielding to popular consensus.
What the article sets forth is more a matter of interpretation than a matter of fact. All my readings indicate acts and events being pretty much as what is reported in the article. What is being emphasized by the article is the current worship of “The Community,” “The Masses,” “The Peasant,” etc. etc. The interpretation offered is narrow in that it overlooks the massive influence of the Nobility and the Clergy. The Protestant revolution did break up the Catholic religion in England and that revolution was effectuated by the LEADERSHIP of those days.
I would argue that the root of all the trouble today really started a century later, when that fanatic idiot Catesby bungled a coup attempt against James I.
Youre right; thing is, that I think that without the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans never would have had the revolution that culminated in beheading Charles I, throwing out the direct legitimate Stuart line, and bringing in the Hanovers if only because they were Protestant.
Just think, all that chaos because Anne Boleyn didnt put out for Henry VIII
In the end however, the puritans were the losers of the the 7th century wars not just in england. The Puritans were Calvinists. As it happened the Calvinists were losers all over Europe of the 17th century wars including the French Heugoneats the Dutch Reformed Church, the German Reformed Church, the Swedish reformed Church, the Swiss Reformed Church. The Scottish presbyterians were also Calvinists.. All these churches bailed out of Europe. The Calvinists were a majority of the USA population at the time of the revolution. However their percentages went into quick decline as they were superceded by the baptists and methodists by the mid 19th century.
“A woman who gets pregnant 9 times has no problem with fertility.”
I know things were more difficult in those days, but the purpose of pregnancy is to produce children who make it out of the cradle, so I would still say that she AND HENRY had fertility problems.
In fact, as we now know but they did not, the failure to produce male offspring lies entirely with the father. Henry had a lot of wives and not too many children. I know he had a bastard son, don’t know how old he lived to be, but of his legit children only Elizabeth lived a full live. But of course, as I said above, things were a lot more difficult then.
While one can sympathize with Henry’s desire for a son it’s impossible to condone the lengths he went to to get one.
Divorcing Katherine was bad enough, but the rest of it, just awful.
They were really so violent in those days, and it’s amazing how many of the elites who had great power ended up being executed themselves.
I can’t imagine living at such a time, every day must have seemed fraught with peril.
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.