Wisdom From A Protestant

[RandomProddy]

I really can't say with any authority, I'm a mathematician not a historian..

[Ellenita]

Well I've been easily swayed by Hilare Belloc's argument which I have found facinating! He is very clear that the link between the decline of the monarchy and the balance of power moving to parliament was as a result of the protestant reformation which, incidently, he attributes not so much to religious conviction for the majority of the nobles, but on the acquiring of fortunes from ransacking the Catholic church. In fact he is rather more sympathetic towards Henry VIII and Elizabeth I than I would have expected, saying that both were not convinced that it was neccessary to completely break with the Pope, that they were weak personalities and that they were in fact victims themselves of ambitious individuals out for their own gain. Given that I have had a lifetime of English protestant interpretation of history, this has made me see both Henry and Elizabeth in a different light!

It's interesting that land, property and politics dominated the other European monarchs at the same time which prevented them from forming alliances on the basis of their common Catholic faith. If they had united rather than fought each other, it is unlikely England would have been able to stand against them.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 4 2004, 06:15 PM'] Well I've been easily swayed by Hilare Belloc's argument which I have found facinating! He is very clear that the link between the decline of the monarchy and the balance of power moving to parliament was as a result of the protestant reformation which, incidently, he attributes not so much to religious conviction for the majority of the nobles, but on the acquiring of fortunes from ransacking the Catholic church. In fact he is rather more sympathetic towards Henry VIII and Elizabeth I than I would have expected, saying that both were not convinced that it was neccessary to completely break with the Pope, that they were weak personalities and that they were in fact victims themselves of ambitious individuals out for their own gain. Given that I have had a lifetime of English protestant interpretation of history, this has made me see both Henry and Elizabeth in a different light!

It's interesting that land, property and politics dominated the other European monarchs at the same time which prevented them from forming alliances on the basis of their common Catholic faith. If they had united rather than fought each other, it is unlikely England would have been able to stand against them. [/quote]
Ellenita, I also love Hillaire Belloc's explanation of all this. You mentioned earlier his book [i]Characters of the Reformation[/i] which is a GREAT book. I really loved it, and I want to read it again more thoroughly ... I just had time to skim it when I had it.

[PedroX]

Ellenita,

You bring an interesting arguement from Mssr. Belloc. I have never heard anyone state that Henry VIII was a victim before. I suppose Cramner was the evil hand behind the throne?

I might find it a bit more believable of Elizabeth I (Good Queen Bess!) than I do of Henry. I think he is right in attributing the nobles capitulation to greed (and, unfortunately the Bishops as well). However, Henry knew full well what he was doing, and did so for greed, and sex, nothing more and nothing less.

peace...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 06:52 PM'] I suppose Cramner was the evil hand behind the throne? [/quote]
If I remember correctly, Belloc pins it squarely on Anne Boleyn and her desire to be queen. He paints Henry as falling victim to Anne's manipulative ways, along with his own selfish greed.

[Ellenita]

Yes, he sees Anne Boleyn as the main person who manipulates Henry, but also says that Thomas Cromwell (great uncle of Oliver Cromwell) and Cranmer were controlling Henry politically, and I think there is alot of truth to that since the complete break with the Pope was not pushed through during Henry's reign which doesn't add up if you see him as a detirmined man with absolute rule.

It's an interesting portrayal of Henry since, certainly in English history, we are taught that Henry was a strong man who fell in love with Anne partly as a result of a love less marriage. Belloc suggests the opposite is true - that Henry and Catherine on the whole had a good marriage by royal standards, but that he became infatuated with Anne who refused to become his mistress. Henry was weak and gave into her demands and his own sinful desire, but was reluctant to set Catherine or the catholic faith aside.

I've found this reading of history makes more sense of the liturgy of the anglican church.......the differences between the anglican and catholic church always puzzled me given that the anglican liturgy mirrors the catholic liturgy to some considerable degree.

You need to remember that I am undoing a lifetime of being raised within a biased educational system when it comes to English history/religion when you read my posts!!

[Crusader_4]

Where are these articles on the site i would b highly interested in reading them and commenting on them since i am an English History buff to some extent

[PedroX]

It is true (apparently) that Anne would not become Henry's mistress, but held out for mariage. However, it is also true that Henry had been wanting and trying to exert undue influence over the church for sometime. The oath of loyalty was simply the last step in a long line of greed. (Btw the English tradition of monarchy exerting power over the church goes back to Thomas A'Becket).

However, I find it hard to accept the thesis that anybody but Henry made the decisions or that he was unduly influenced. Henry was an amazingly strong willed, intelligent and conniving man.

peace...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 4 2004, 10:52 PM'] However, I find it hard to accept the thesis that anybody but Henry made the decisions or that he was unduly influenced. Henry was an amazingly strong willed, intelligent and conniving man.

peace... [/quote]
Yeah, Belloc draws him in a totally different light, more as a weak man overly susceptible to the exertion of outside pressures. I've not done much reading about Henry, so can't really comment on how others perceived his character.

But Belloc's whole premise is that Henry's weak character, combined with his greed/lust and the desires of those around him, led to the English Reformation, without which the Protestant Reformation as a whole never would have succeeded.

I'm getting the book, hopefully ... I'll let you read it when it comes, if you like.