How Many Catholics Were Killed During Cromwell and Henry VIII In England?

self | Today | self

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

My daughter who is named Chelsea after Thomas Moores residence is doing a Research Paper for History on Saint Thomas Moore.

In one of his late letters he referrs to the death of 4000 Catholics in the small port town of Chelsea, but we are having a hard time coming up with a total number of Catholics killed as a result of Henry VIII's and Cromwells reformation.

All the encyclopedia's cover the number of his wifes, how much money he "borrowed" from the Church, but nowhere can I find the number of Catholics killed.

[mercy]

Civil wars are a bitch. One could say Lincoln slaughtered hundreds of thousands if you take the 'War of Northern Aggression' tack.

Yes the reformation wars were about religion but then religion was politics. Catholics were seen as foreigh agents and many of them were. It is hard for a Protestant loyalist to look favorably upon a RC who probably had far more loyalty to Rome than his King.

There is no better argument that the US should still be united than there is that the UK should. (unless you think islands have more import than culture and law)

We and they, the majority at least, made the decision that unification was worth dying and killing for.

[Palladin]

Source: Dr. Nalson, English Historian, in his "History of the Civil Wars":

"It should be particularly noted that the suckling infant sometimes aroused in the British soldiers the same blood-thirst that did the fighting rebel. The butchering of infants was more diligently attended to during this period than in any other previous English excursion through Ireland.

It is a matter of record that in the presence of, and with the toleration of, their officers, the common soldiers engaged in the sport of tossing Irish babes upon their spears."

Nalson further states: "I have heard a relation of my own, who was a captain in that service, relate that little children were sufferers with the guilty, and that when anyone had some grains of compassion, and reprimanded the soldiers for their inhumanity, they would scoffingly reply: 'Why? Nits will be lice!' And so they dispatched them."

[mercy]

And this unprovable assertion adds to our modern lives how? I'm sure some of my ancestors murdered a few Indians but it really doesn't concern me much today. I am a Protestant and I put emphasis on the first two sylables. I truly detest some of the practices of Roman Catholicism. But it matters not in my daily life. I treat RCs just like I treat everybody else. Their religion is their business as long as they keep it out of MY face and my politics.

It's ancient history. Both sides sinned. What is the worth of dwelling on it or over emphasizing the extremes of either side to the mind of a child? This is how Islamists teach their children how to hate.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

The entire population of England and Wales at that time was around 4 million

I think your population figures are a little low.

In any event, I studied this period, for many, many years; and although I've been away from it for a while, the 400,000 figure is one that just popped into my head - without having to think about it. Like knowing that New Year's Day was Lady's Day until 1752.

Its not quite right to compare HVIII and his murders versus the deaths in the Black Death, simply because the Black Death was over a much shorter period of time, this 400,000 that rings true with me, covers the entire reign of Henry VIII. It is also possible that the 400,000 figure that I remember is the total religious deaths at the hands of Henry -- he had no problem burning Protestants as well.

[Junior]

Except that the report deals with the number of Catholics killed. No group of people is entirely clean of evil, however, the question asked for specific information. You're attempting to turn this into a "well, they're more evil than we are" situation.

[Phsstpok]

You're attempting to turn this into a "well, they're more evil than we are" situation.

No, I was reacting to a "they're more evil that we are" question by trying to point out the importance of context and balance. It didn't happen in a vacuum. I may have gotten my Queen Mary's confused but this part of the post is immenently defensible.

God came to earth 2000 years ago and died in the most horrible way possible to prove to us that he still forgives us and we kill each other over which order the prayers are said in and what kind of hat the priest should wear? We should get on our knees and beg forgivness for all of mankinds sins and forget about who did what to whom.

[RaceBannon]

Oh, I am well aware that when a person uses the term POPISH that they are immediately slanted, but there has to be a reason.

Any decent library that containes books on the reformation tells why.

Any study on WHY the US has laws in the constitution against a state church tells why.

It should come as no surprise then, that when people from the 16th, 17th, and 18th century speak of the Roman religion, that they are badmouthing it.

If you are RCC now, you are not living anywhere's near the religion of yourr forefathers. Neither am I, thankfully, but it was my forfathers that were hunted down like dogs and killed in Northern Ireland by the RCC, lead by the Priests, killed and slaughtered, just like the link I provided tells the story of what happened before Cromwell invaded.

I may not like all that Cromwell did, but because he did, my family exists today alive, instead of being dead and burned alive fo not bowing to Rome.

You need to read that carefully. Cromwell's actions preserved many lives. Cromwell did not invade just to invade. There was an insurrection going on, and Cromwell stopped it as any 17th century General would have.

Hios actions were not any more barbarous than any of his day, just the most severe of Ireland's history of north or south in their written history.

Cromwell did not invade for fun. Cromwell invaded to save the Kingdom's property and to save lives of the Kng's subjects: My ancestors.

If you dont like the history of the past, too bad. I am not asking reparations, just for recognition.

Too many people ignore just what the wars of the middle centuries were about between England and France or Spain, and it wasnt Gold. It was about religion being forced upon England and Ireland's North, and also about an attempt to force the Colonies of New England to become RCC, too.

Did you know that? France wanted to force New England to become RCC, that is what started the French and Indian wars. It is why France was going to invade Massachussets Bay colony back in the 1630's only to be wrecked in a storm, thanks to God's Divine Providence saving New England from that rule.

As for history written in the last 50 years, ...why? They didnt live then, they werent the ones in danger of their lives, why read revisionist history?

Wouldnt you rather read what Washington wrote instead of what people write about him?

Besides, mainstream Protestantism is liberal, and apologetic and cowardly today, and certainly for the last 50 years. I would rather read that history written from the people of that time themselves. That way, I get it from the horses mouth.

[RobbyS]

We really don't know exactly what part Elizabeth played in government. That she was willful, accomplisheds in the arts and clever, there is no doubt. But one of the attributes of her reign was an abundance of propoganda, starting with Foxe who has so obscured the reign of Mary.How much of this was true? How much government press releases? Was Mary a fanatic? So were Jane Grey and her brother Edward. Was Elizabeth indifferent? As for the prayer Book, you assume that the people had no attachment to the mass and that Cranmer only "englished" the liturgy. On the contrary, he intended to deny the Real Presence and to change all ritual fundamentally in a Protestant direction, both of which were contrary to popular feeling, especially in the North and West.

[Little Bill]

Race:

You are correct in mentioning that a civil war was going on at the time, actually three, English-English, English-Scots, English-Irish. These wars had a profound effect on the development of the future United States.

The Colonies were on their own for approximately forty years and developed some rather different ideas of government than that which was prevalent in England. The next time the Limeys tried a Chuck the First, we had English Civil War 11.

About the Irish I think that they would, given the opportunity, reform the Sept's and be at continuous war with each other. My family has Catholic and Scots-Irish branches, half of those are K of C and the other half Masons, Half rat, half Republican, Celts can be exasperating.

[Palladin]

Here is a good link for your daughter.

http://www.artbabyart.com/article/ethniccleansing.htm

This author and researcher places the number of Irish killed by sword or starvation under Elizabeth at one million. There are stats for Cromwell, too.

[Palladin]

Braveheart and The Patriot were good for capturing the great English Ethical Behavior. Yes, indeed. Especially in The Patriot, in the scene where the British lock all the men, women, and children in the church and burn them to death. This could have been based on the actual event in Drogheda, where Cromwell ordered his men to barricade St. Peter's Church, where some 80-100 people had sought sanctuary. They burnt it to the ground, incinerating men, women, and children alike. The Feds could have used Cromwell at Waco!

[Conservative4Ever]

Grandmothers are wonderful creatures. Mine used to make us wear something orange on St. Paddy's Day cause we were orange Irish not green Irish. I guess that made us 'the other guys'. :) Merry Christmas to you.

Red

[sawyer]

Well I guess you are right on the killing. One kills this group and the other kills that group. Both rulers are wrong in how to fix the mess. And I do know Bloody Mary and Mary Queen of Scots were not the same person. My own family left England at this time and went to Holland. It is a time that is interesting to read about.

[jocon307]

Merry Christmas to you too red.

LOL, I have one of those "Orange" Savings accounts, from ING/Barings. Those are the Dutch, as in William of Orange, who ascended the throne with Queen Anne during the Glorious Revolution, if I haven't completely screwed up History here. My mom always said that the only people my grandmother trusted in business where Orangemen, so I feel my money is safe with them!

I hope we may all have a healthy and properous '04!

jess

[sawyer]

No but it is an interesting part of history as the start of our own country fits right into this, so to know our history you must know this history. One thing always comes from something else.Our history does not ring true with out this, believe me.

[sawyer]

OK I will drop it. Thomas is not the same Cromwell and I can see you are sick of the whole thing.

[sawyer]

Watch that worm eating as some one will think you are a witch.

[quadrant]

In the England of Elizabeth's time the monarch was expected to rule as well as reign.
The Crown was responsibily for the administration of the affairs of the kingdom. And not only administratively, but also financially.
The King had "to live on his own", as the saying went. That is, the monarch had to pay for the running of government out of his own revenue. Even in those days it was settled law that only Parliament could raise taxes.
The Stuarts were constantly at odds with Parliament (and by extension, the people) over the imposition of taxes - ship money levied on inland towns is a classic example - without the consent of Parliament.
No doubt, Elizabeth had a great propaganda machine, but in those days one did not sit on a throne for as long as she did without considerable skills. She was, after all, not only her Father's daughter, she was the granddaughter of Henry VII, both of whom were willful and accomplished monarchs.
No doubt, there was attachment to Roman Catholicism, especially in the north and west. However, both of those areas were marginal to the acquisition of power in England. Power and money have always been centered in the south and east, and it is in those areas where the attachment to the Protestant faith was strongest.
I am not a theologian and cannot comment on the validity of Thomas Cranmer's view on the Mass, or for that matter on the views of anyone else. Nor do I care to.
I have no doubt, though, that Cramner intended to move the liturgy in a Protestant direction, but then that was the charge he received from the monarch of the day.
The Crown has always exercised far more control over the established Chruch in England (whether that Church be Roman Catholic or Protestant) than was exercised by monarchs on the Continent.
One example of this: when a Bishop died the revenue of his diocese reverted to the Crown until a successor was appointed and confirmed.
The Pope might appoint a Bishop, but only the Crown could confirm that appointment, and English kings were not above delaying confirmation until they squeezed the last ounce of money out of the diocese.
The King had this power because he was in theory temporal lord (that is the feudal lord) of all the lands in England. Because a diocese owned land, it was in effect subject to feudal obligations.
For lay people this obligation proved no problem since property passed to next-of-kin according to the laws of inheritance.
But Church property was a different matter. When a Bishop died, there was no next-of-kin. Ownership of the property was in a sort of legal limbo. The Crown claimed that it had a right to act as a guardian until a new "owner" was properly confirmed. And normally a guardian has financial control of the revenues of his ward.
Naturally, Popes and Kings fought over this issue, and compromises were made from time to time, but the English Crown never fully renounced its rights in this matter.
Incidentally, this power gave the English Crown a great say in who was appointed a bishop. Popes knew it made little sense to appoint a man whose confirmation would be delayed for months and maybe years, while the Crown enjoyed the fruits of the revenue of the diocese.

[RobbyS]

As to the relative strength of Catholics and Protestants in England, even London and Kent were divided when Mary became queen. Protestant propoganda has become so embedded in English historiography(e.g. A.G. Dickens) that even recent speculation that the majority of people in England were Catholic when Elizabeth became Queen has been ignored. The thing to remember is that The English Reformation was imposed from above, as was the Marian "reaction" and the Elizabethan Settlement. That the people tolerated this was owing to the power and popularity of the Tudor monarchs. Mary's mistake was not trying to restore Catholicism--the people would have accepted that in time--but marrying a foreign prince. Elizabeth, who was cleverer than her sister, learned that lesson well. But her real gift was the long life denied to her siblings. Raising the question anew: was she really Henry's child?

[quadrant]

I have no doubt that there were many Catholics in England. I won't concede a majority, but there was an attachment to the old faith, even in the south and east of the country.
However, of that segment of the population that counted, the merchants (who provided the money) and the nobility (who owned the land) most were Protestant.
The merchants were Protestant mostly because of trading relations with the Netherlands.
The nobility was Protestant because they had gotten rich from the siezure of the lands owned by the monestaries.

Almost all religions become the state religion when imposed from above, not when the majority of the population begins to profess a new faith.
The Roman Empire became a Christian Empire at the conversion of Constantine, not because of an upswelling of the Christian faith. However, paganism remained a powerful force amoung the people, especially the poorest class, for centuries.
Once Egypt and North Africa were bastions of Christianity, but with the Arab conquest, the population gradually con-
verted to Islam.
The same happened when the Ottoman Turks conquered Anatolia.

Whether the English would have accepted a return to Catholicism cannot be proved either way, since there is no way to experiment with history.
Hovwever, one thing is true: among a great many Englishmen (especially the most influential) of that time, Catholcism was considered an alien religion and the faith of the enemy. People do not readily convert to or accept a faith they consider hostile to their nation or its interests.

Finally, there remains the question why Mary was so insensi-
tive to the desires of her people.
Her sister, as did her father, demonstrated a far better grasp of the English temper than did Mary.

Whether Elizabeth was "really" Henry's child is irrelevant at this point. Only one person knows for certain: Anne Boyelin, and she had an obvious interest in her daughter's legitimacy.
Certainly, Henry considered Elizabeth legitimate, since he named her in his will as a successor after her half-brother Edward and her half-sister Mary.
Kings during that time - or really anytime - did not normally name bastards to succeed them.
The lack of support given to the Duke of Monmouth by almost everyone is a classic example. Monmouth may have been Protestant but he was illegitimate, and even the most fervent Protestant was unwilling to put a bastard on the throne in the place of the legitimate heir, James, Duke of York who was a Catholic.