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

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.

Spain was not considered to be "the enemy." That was France.
So long as the Emperor was ruler in the Netherlands. Spain was not even in the picture. The ambassadors to England were Dutchmen. If the Princess Mary had decided to go into exile when she seemed to be threated by Somerset, she would have gone to the Netherlands, not Spain. Despite the fact that she was half-Spanish, she had no inclinations in that direction. She was as English as her father and siblings.
Under Henry Catholicism and Protestantism were more or less in balance. The king himself went to mass and men like Gardiner had as much influence on him as Cranmer. It was only with Henry's death that Protestantism was given full reign in the country. Dudley's failure to install Jane Grey shows that the religious balance in the country could have tipped one way or another, depending on events. Futhermore we must not forget that Pole's Catholicism was a reform Catholicism, If she had lived what reason is there to believe that she would have been overthrown even for her occasional cruelty? Jane Grey was originally spared for the same reason that Elizabeth spared Mary Stuart for so long, and ordered her execution for the same reason that Elizabeth executed Mary, because she was a danger to the Crown. Certainly the country forgave Henry and Edward, however much they chafed under their rule.

If memory serves, Lady Jane Gray was the granddaughter of Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII.
Until the Act of Succession was passed by Parliament, there were no rules to govern the succession to the Crown.
A weak connection was better than no connection, but even before the Act, the right of a legitimate offspring to succeed at the death of a parent was recongnized as paramount.
Lady Jane Gray had a connection, but it was a weak one.
Such a connection might make her an acceptable candidate if no one with a better claim was available, but there were far better candidates.
In fact, Lady Jane Gray's claim to the throne was so weak that she lacked anything more than token support in the country, even among the Protestant party.
While Edward VI was king, his half-sister Mary was the recognized heir to the throne, despite the fact that she was a Catholic.
You must remember that in those days it was not unthinkable for a Catholic to be the English monarch. James, Duke of York, was a devout Catholic and ascended the throne with only token opposition.

The machinations of the aliances between England, France, and Spain is far too complicated to hash out here.
There is one inescapable fact: national feeling was increasing rapidly in England, and anyone felt to be an agent of a foreign power was under suspicion.
Catholicism was considered by the ascension of Elizabeth as a foreign and alien religion by a large segment of the English people.

Henry VIII went to mass because he considered himself a Catholic. He did not consider that he was leaving the Church but only "reforming" it. It was only with the ascension of his son - who was by anyone's defintion the rightful heir - that Protestantism gained ascendency.

Mary I was unsuited by temper to be Queen of England. I think, though I have no evidence to support my conclusion, that she was consumed by anger over the wrongs done to her Mother and that anger clouded her judgment.
It is dangerous for a monarch whose religion is different from that of his of her subjects to harbor ill-will toward anyone. Prudence and restraint is the the best policy. Mary lacked the capacity to exercise either quality.

Why would Mary not want to be queen?
She must have felt that her ascension to the throne was a triumphal vidication of all the wrongs that she (and her Mother) endured at the hands of Henry VIII.
And it was to her, I think, a sign from heaven that Roman Catholicism could be re-established in England.

Was Mary "manuevered" into naming Elizabeth as a successor or did Mary realize that Elizabeth was the lawful successor to the throne?

Perhaps Protestants were disloyal to Mary, but were they under any obligation to be loyal to a sovereign who they felt was persecuting their faith?

Historically, the separation of dissent and sedition has been difficult, even in the United States. To expect that such a separation could be made in an atmosphere of religious fervor is futile. Religion in the England (indeed, in all of Europe) of that time was as defining as it is now in the Balkans.

Mary certainly wanted to restore Catholicism, but she never showed much interest in politics, which is one reason why Northumberland was caught short when she refused to give way to Jane Grey. I say she was manuevered because she knew that Elizabeth was, at best equivocal about religion. Gravely ill, she was in her last days, as helpless in the hands of her ministers as Edward had been. Phillip, you will recall, became one of Elizabeth's suitors, and probably hoped to turn her. Relations were never better than cool between the two sisters. Remember that Elizabeth was Anne Bullen's daughter, the daughter of all Mary's woes.

Comment: Unless of course you want to use it as definitive historical reference for your own slanted view of history...

Let me say at the onset, China, that I don't know the truth of the history here, and I suspect that you don't either.

I have Irish Catholic and Scotch-Irish Presbyterian ancestors. One of my probable ancestors raised troops to help Mary become Queen and served as Elizabeth's Catholic jailer. A gr-gr-gr-...-great blood uncle of mine, a Protestant, was Elizabeth's chief minister for about 40 years. Henry VIII is a distant cousin, and my ancestors served in his court. Oliver Cromwell's daughter married one of my blood uncles. More recently, one of my more immediate ancestors was named after an Irish Catholic rebel. The point is that unless I tread objectively and carefully through this history, ancestors from one side of my family or the other will come back to haunt me.

All that being said, let's look at some of the sources. Perhaps the Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History might help. Consulting editors were Barry Cunliffe, Robert Bartlett, John Morrill, Asa Brigs, and Joanna Bourke. 2001-2002.

This book shows massacres of Protestants in 1641 occurring at Strabane, Newtown, Portadown, Armagh, Finnane, Newry, Killala, Longford, Wicklow, Kilkenny, and Wexford. It also shows massacres of Catholics at Islandmagee and Clongowes. The book estimates 3,000 Protestants around Dublin and in Ulster were killed.

A BBC version suggests 12,000 Protestants were killed in the 1641 uprising: BBC. From that site: "What began as an event associated with the massacre of Irish Protestants was to end with the equally notable massacres wrought by the armies of Oliver Cromwell who landed in Ireland in 1649. The slaughter of the inhabitants of Drogheda and Wexford are as indelibly imprinted on the psyche of Irish Catholics as the previous massacres in Ulster are on Protestants."

I suspect the BBC quote is about as close to objectivity as you'll get. (I must admit it feels strange to quote the BBC on anything these days.)

A number of times she wrote to the Emperor, ruler of Spain and the Netherlands, asking for his advice and help. At one time she was betrothed to him, and she ended up marrying his son Phillip. The marriage was generally unpopular with the English people, who feared it would entagle them in Hapsburg affairs on the Continent.

Spain not the enemy? Apparently that is not what they teach in England. From UK schoolnet:

To protect her position, Mary decided to form an alliance with the Catholic monarchy in Spain. In 1554 Philip married Mary. The marriage was unpopular with the English people. They disliked the idea of having a foreign king. At that time the English particularly disliked the Spanish as they were seen as England's main rivals in Europe.

In the Europe of those days religion and politics were inseparable, as today they are in the Middle East, the Balkans, Iran, or India.

You have argued my point: unlike her sister, Elizabeth was indifferent to the finer points of religious dispute. Her religious view were grounded in the basic Creeds (Nicene and Apostles) of Christianity and a generalized Prostestantism, but it was a Prostestantism that was English and controlled by the Crown.
Beyond that, she had no desire to "make windows on mens' souls." That is why the Book of Common Prayer regulates public worship and not private devotion.
She had seen England torn apart by religious strife and had no intention of opening that wound.

Elizabeth had no intention of being "turned" by Mary or anyone else. That is why during Mary's reign, Elizabeth maded a public display of devotion to Catholcism.
Elizabeth was a stong-minded, determined woman who knew the danger to her person and position and had no intention of becoming a martyr for anyone or anything. If survival required compromise, then she compromised.

Mary was helpless in the hands of her ministers because she never inspired widespread loyalty among her English subjects. And she never found ministers or servants of the quality of Cecil or Walsingham.
Mary was consumed with a desire for revenge on those people or institutions she felt had wronged her Mother. That desire blinded her judgment. And she wanted to impose a faith considered heretical by the most important elements of society and maybe by a majority of the population.
Mary was in many ways a tragic figure, but unlike other tragic figures (Jonathan in the Bible, for instance) her unhappiness was the result of her own actions.
No one forced Mary to take the actions she took. She took them because she wanted to.

Who does history judge was the better ruler: a woman who tried to force a reluctant people along a path they were unwilling to travel, or one that realized that moderation and comporomise, not dogmatism, were necssary if she were to keep the Crown securely on her head?

Drogheda's being divided by the river caused some confusion and may have led to the massacre. When forces on one side of the river surrendered, it is alleged that Cromwell, still meeting resistance on the other side, ordered the annihilation of the entire population. "I do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sent to the sugar plantations at Barbados.

After the massacre, Cromwell sought to explain his actions in a letter to William Lenthall, speaker of the Parliament: "...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood, and it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remourse and regret...."

From your link:

Conclusion

A "Peace Process," in Ireland, was boldly initiated, in 1993, by Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and the Social Democratic Labor Party's John Hume. It eventually evolved into the 1998 "Good Friday Agreement." Unionist prevarications, however, and the reluctance of Blair's Labor government to trump the Orange card, despite having a 179-vote majority in the Parliament, have brought it to the brink of failure. Keep in mind that on December 19,1993, the London Sunday Times reported a secret Anglo-Irish deal to "smash the IRA, if a peace deal is rejected."[36]

Some now wonder, if the "Peace Process" is yet another example of Perfidious Albion's dirty tricks. They ask, "Will British ethnic cleansing return once again to Ireland and with a fury that would shame even Cromwell?" Only the wirepullers at Whitehall know for sure the answer to that troubling question.

If the past 831 years is prologue, we would do well to heed it.

© William Hughes 2002

I don't attach credibility to your link's author. He sounds like an IRA apologist and trying to compare the modern UK with Cromwell is intellectually immature.

Most English historians have been greatly influenced by the Whig view of history when they approach Elizabeth. All we can safely say is that she was not a bigot like Mary or like Edward. As to whether she might have been turned, Phillip certainly thought so, because he was one of her suitors and so did much of Catholic Europe for ten years. We do know that she decided that her personal interest lay with the Protestant Party, which decidedly turned against her after she went beyond her Father's policy and restored relations with Rome.

As to how strong that Party was, remember that it only came into ascendency when the child Edward became king. So Mary was reversing not twenty year's of domestic policy but six. Mary was bound to gather strength when she decided not to restore the lands taken from the Church, including those taken during Edward's time. That Parliament was willing to restore the heresy laws, albeit reluctantly, shows that the country was divided, and she would have been well-advised not to apply them harshly. She did this against the advise of Phillip, for punishment for punishment for lese majeste was more acceptable than punishment for heresy.

Again her health weighed against her judgement. We cannot ignore that the harshness that was so inconsistent with her previous behavior arose from her disappointment in conceiving a child, her decline in health, and finally--as you say--her desire to get even with those who had wronged her. But there is another consideration which the Whigs were not willing to give full weight: that the Protestants in the lower orders were driven by a bigotry that was driven mad by their hatred of the papacy and of the mass. In this they were the forerunners of the Puritans who
disturbed even Elizabeth's reign and then finally plunged the country into civil war.

Themore radical Protestants came to hate the Prayer Book because it reminded them too much of the mass, but let us not forget that it was also hateful to Catholics like Mary who were only too aware that, especially in its second editor, repudiated the doctrine of transubstantiation. This was made only too clear in the use that was made of it and in the strippling of the churches of all appearances of the old faith, especially the replacement of stone altars by wooden communion tables. Local rebellions against this process, however, are less mentioned than those against the restoration of them in other places. One of the criticisms of the Marian regime was its failure to use the printing press. This is only by comparison with the Protestants who were consumed by a passion for print and on whose works historians depend for a view of the period and, like Foxe, they are full of that hatred that is typical of revolutionary thought, especially that of the lower orders, in any period.

Elizabeth 1558-1603 4

This number is very bogus, because the Catholics killed under Elizabeth (and her successor, James I) were typically tried and convicted of treason, not heresy. The practice of Catholicism was considered treasonable activity under the law, even if there no actual attempt to overthrow the government could be proven.

In fact, my namesake, St. Edmund Campion, swore allegiance to Elizabeth I at his trial (except for acknowledging her as the head of the Church) and announced that he did not agree with the Pope's admonition that Catholics rebel against her. He was hung, drawn, and quartered anyway, for the "crime" of being a Jesuit priest.

The number of Catholics killed for the "treasonable" practice of their faith under Elizabeth and James was well into the hundreds.

It's likely that the "heretics" mentioned here were actually non-conformist Protestants, not Catholics.

Ironically, Hillaire Belloc points out that Queen Mary committed a tactical blunder, in that she executed a number of Protestants for heresy who were in fact guilty of honest-to-goodness treason, for supporting the Protestant pretender Lady Jane Grey.

If you'll see my posts above, you'll see that I acknowledge this (particularly in the case of Campion, for whom there are extensive records of his trial and his sterling defense of his cause). The problem comes with quantifying the lesser-known for whom no records were kept.

No question that Elizabeth was cagey and tried folks for things other than those she was really after them for. (My position historically is that she wasn't the "perfect Gloriana" she was made out to be, for economic and political reasons as well as religion. She was, however, dealt a very bad hand by the ping-pong persecutions of Edward and Mary, as well as the Scottish plotters and the Spanish difficulties.)

But the question here had to do with Henry VIII and his minister Cromwell, not with Elizabeth. That's another whole question. I just copied the whole table from the website -- I should have just excerpted Henry to avoid controversy on points that weren't under discussion . . .

I would not be at all surprised if the executions were in the hundreds under Elizabeth. But, with respect to Henry, I don't think it was anywhere near 400,000, 'cause the sum total of those executed for EVERY offense under Henry was only in the 70k range . . .

I'd recommend the latest bio on "Shakespeare" by Michael Wood (who did PBS' series In Search of Alexander and In Search of the Dark Ages). He researched the history of the bard's family in Stratford-on-Avon, which was a Catholic stronghold in Elizabethan England, and he believes that the entire clan were recusants, or secret Catholics who refused to participate in Protestant communion.

Shakespeare's father lost his position on the town council for being a recusant. Shakespeare's daughter Susanna was fined for being a recusant (this occurred years after his death).

Bear in mind that keeping statistics is a modern thing...

Agreed. Figures from this period are educated guesses. For example, I've tried to get statistics on how many Protestants were killed in the Saint Bartholomew massacres in France (Paris, Meaux, Rouen, Troyes, Angers, Orleans, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Lyon). The numbers range from 2,000 to 100,000 depending on source.

An interesting approach to unraveling those times in France is David Potter's The French Wars of Religion. It is a collection of translated original documents from both sides and from observers (usually ambassadors and envoys) from other countries. Not surprisingly, Catholic and Protestant accounts of events in the wars of religion often do not agree.

Do you know of any sources that provide side-by-side comparisons of documents from both sides of the Catholic-Protestant struggle in England?

The winning side always writes the history it wants to present. Granted Whig writers like Macaulay wrote and interpreted history to suit themselves. However, are the events as the Whigs present them factually wrong.
That is, have they twisted or ignored significant events to suit their opinions? Are their interpretation unsupported by evidence? Or are their interpretations merely distasteful? Has additional research discovered facts and events unknown to the Whigs? Is there some other reason to trigger a reassessment of the Whig history of England?

From whom would Mary gather strength, if she restored the lands taken from the Church?
From the merchants who had the money? Doubtful; they would see it as an attack of property.
From the nobility and the gentry? Certainly not; they had gotten rich on Church lands.
From the people? Who cared; in those days "the people" had little say in government.
From the Chruch itself? Of course; but their opionion was of less weight than that of the people, for the Church had neither numbers, nor money, nor power on its side.

If all you can say about Elizabeth is that she was not a bigot, you have said a lot for the 16the Century. Edward VI may have been a bigot, but he was only nine years old when he ascended the throne and fifteen when he died. He was a child with the opinions and prejudices of a child and a later a juvenile.
Mary was a grown woman when she became queen. Her prejudices were fully matured.

I agree that the lower orders were bigoted and came to hate the Prayer Book. However, religious bigotry was common among all classes and all religions.
While the lower classes had the power to riot, they did not have the power to make policy. They didn't even have the vote.
The lower classes had little access to printing. That, especailly in those days, required capital.
The people who had access to and used printing were precisely the people who would depose Charles I: the gentry (like Cromwell) and the merchants.

I am no expert on the English public opinion of the 16th Century, but it seems to me that the removal of the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the Prayer Book would be seen as a ploy, a palliative, or maybe as a trick by the Protestant party.
They would have known the doctine remained a tenent of the Catholic faith and could be reintroduced into the worship at any time.
In fact, my guess is that the removal only served to harden their resolve to split from the Roman Church.
Among Protestants - and I can tell you that because I am one - there is an ingrained, almost chromosonal, distrust of bishops, even Protestant ones whether Episcopal, Lutherian, or Methodist.
I doubt the Protestants of 16th Century England were prepared to trust any bishop, especially the Bishop of Rome.
Nor is this distrust a relic of the past.
The English have given the current Archbishop of Canterbury a nickname: the hairy lefty.

An interesting approach, but no. As an aside, I am sometimes amazed by the scarcity of documentation about important events. Years ago I read about the efforst of a civil war historian to apply Napier's biographical approach to ascertain the character of the Radial Republicans. To his astonishmet he could gather information about the majority of these men only what appeared in the obituaries and tombstones, and this was obtain scanty. Yet these were often men important in their communities. Either they wrote little themselves or their letters were lost. It is a sobering reminder that if we think "history" can tell us what really happened then we are probably mistaken.

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.