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.

[Conservative4Ever]

yeah...but they could have been nice about it. :)

Red

[CatoRenasci]

Reading between the lines, even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Mary's religous persecutions were on a scale far greater (and in a far shorter time) than her predecessors. And that's the most favorable view of Mary Tudor you're likely to find.

[TIElniff]

The first thing to do is to make sure your daughter defines the period of time she is trying to research. To put Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell in the same time frame will lead to all kinds of confusion. Post Number 25 (above) lays out the time periods involved. Be sure your daughter gets it straight, or she will be very frustrated.

From Post No 25: "Especially as you are talking about two periods separated by a century: Henry VIII reigned in the first half of the 16th century (1509-1547) and was Protestant only in his later years. Cromwell lead the Parliamentary Army that defeated Charles I (executed 1649) and was Lord Protector in the middle of the 17th century (1653-1658)."

On the other hand, she may be thinking of Thomas Cromwell (not Oliver Cromwell). Thomas Cromwell (1485 - 1540) was an advisor to King Henry VIII and has been called "the architect of the English Reformation for his part in establishing Protestantism in England." (quoted from the World Book Encyclopedia).

[what's up]

it avoided the horrors of the wars in France and her Church produced a theology that avoided fanaticism.

And that's saying quite a lot.

[It's me]

IIRC, I believe that Elizabeth, being the illigitimate child of King Henry VIII, was not the rightful heir to the throne of England. Mary, Queen of Scotts, a cousin of sorts to Elizabeth, as you say, was the rightful heir to the throne of England. Elizabeth, knowing this, imprisoned Mary/Scots and had her beheaded years later.

I also recall, that Mary/Scots wasn't interested in the throne of England but Calvin, I believe, was terrified that she would convert the country "back" to the Catholic faith. He conspired to get Mary to go to England to see Elizabeth and Elizabeth arrested her.

Anyone else remember their history differently?

[what's up]

I think many of the deaths suffered under him were from those who rebelled against his policies, particularly in the North.

What he is known more for is his dissolution of the monastaries which transformed christianity in England.

[wimpycat]

If they'd been nice about it, the Scots and Irish would have nothing to bitch about today, and would have simply slaughtered each other, as they did in their spare time anyway--the Scots among themselves and the Irish among themselves, I mean.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I'd like to see a source for that. I don't trust your memory.

If I can remember, I'll find the source for you!
Seriously, though .. H VIII did a lot of damage with the dissolution of the monasteries. The toll in human lives was quite staggering. 400,000 really, really, rings true to me.

[RobbyS]

Walsingham, her secret police chief, was a nasty piece of work, however, even by the standards of that time.

[wimpycat]

IIRC, I believe that Elizabeth, being the illigitimate child of King Henry VIII, was not the rightful heir to the throne of England...Anyone else remember their history differently?

Let me take a wild guess...you're Catholic. :-) Elizabeth and Mary were made legitimate and illegitimate in turns by acts of Parliament. Who decided if someone was legitimate or not in England, or who was eligible for the succession of the throne of England or not...the (English) Parliament, or the (foreign) Pope? That was a large part of the argument at the time.

[what's up]

True...however, there were also some nasty intelligence agents sent over from the Continent whose job it was to kill Elizabeth. She needed a tough agent to counteract that.

I've heard that Walsingham is the genesis of todays MI6.

[reed_inthe_wind]

Norman Davies wrote a book titled "The Isles." In it he quotes often from "The History of England" by Father John Lingard. He says; "The Catholic Truth Society reckoned that 318 men and woman put to death for the Faith in England between the reigns of Henry VII and Charles II. And their deaths were every bit as horrible as anything described by John Foxe: After being hanged up, They were cut down, ripped up, and their bowels were burned in their faces."

[CatoRenasci]

The tendency of some Freepers, both Catholic and Protestant, to want to reargue the Reformation never ceases to amaze me.

In this world where the hostility to Christianity is huge, both from secular forces and from Islam, it seems to me that whatever the differences among Christians of different flavors, our common acknowledgement of the Lord Jesus Christ is paramount, and we need to stand together against Christianity's enemies.

[It's me]

What difference does it make whether or not I am Catholic? The truth is the truth what ever ones religion.

Elizabeth was the illigitimate child of King Henry VIII. He had his first wife and ligit child banished to a corner of England. Mary, Henry's ligit child was, understandably angry. She, whether right or wrong, when she was crowned, wanted to rid the country of those who had banished her mother and herself.

[It's me]

The tendency of some Freepers, both Catholic and Protestant, to want to reargue the Reformation...

Reformation? What were they reforming? Protestantism? It didn't exist. They were Revolting against the Catholic Church. Hence the name the Protestant Revolt.

[Gritty]

Your #53: well said!

[wimpycat]

Well put. I hope I'm not coming across as arguing the Reformation over again, and I'm certainly no Catholic basher. But I do think that at least Henry VIII's part in it (I'm speaking of Henry himself, not his supporters, many of whom had their own agendas) was largely over political, not religious, differences. I've studied his reign extensively over the years (as a hobby). Of course, religion and politics were almost inseparable at the time. Monarchs were more much more religious and the Catholic Church was much more political, and politically powerful, back in those days. The sucession was of vital importance at the time, and who had the authority to decide matters of sucession was a legitimate political and legal question.

[wimpycat]

*sigh*

[tiki]

I thought maybe you would know something about this.

[RaceBannon]

Dont leave this one out, eiher!

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox117.htm