Hundreds of English Protestants executed by Catholic Queen Mary

[Lenny]

2005 is the 450th anniversary of the burning to death at the stake of 71 Protestant martyrs in Britain.

289 persons, men, women and children, with one new-born baby, were burnt to death under Mary I ("Bloody Mary") between 1555 and 1558. Another 112 people died in prison from starvation and torture.


LISTEN TO THEIR DYING TESTIMONIES:

JOHN WARNE: "I see no reason to repent for all the filthiness and idolatry is the Church of Rome"

THOMAS WATS: "My good wife and children, beware that ye turn not again to this abominable Papistry... let not the murdering of God's saints cause you to relent"

NICHOLAS SHETTERTEN: "Let that not be your God (the host wafer) which mice and worms can deliver"

DEREK CARVER: "Your doctrine is poison and sorcery - you say you can make a god - you can only make a pudding"

ANN ALBRIGHT: "You priests are the children of perdition and can do no good by your confession"

ARCHBISHOP CRANMER: "As for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and Anti-Christ with all of his false doctrine"


http://www.1335.com/rome.html#mary

[Jimbo Gomez]

I bet they squealed like pigs and cried like little girls when they were burned alive. :)

[Petr]

I bet they squealed like pigs and cried like little girls when they were burned alive. :)
I'd suggest that you don't sink to Lenny's level.


Petr

[Jonathan]

Would you care to post info. on the thousands of Catholics who were killed in Queen Elizabeth's reign?

[Felix the Cat]

Lenny, English Catholics suffered much worse persecution in the 16th century than did Protestants, so focusing solely on these deaths is dishonest

[Lenny]

Lenny, English Catholics suffered much worse persecution in the 16th century than did Protestants, so focusing solely on these deaths is dishonestA few days ago when Pearl Harbor was remembered, was it dishonest to mention the Japanese attack and not mention the US bombing of Japanese cities which happened years later?

[Anarch]

Cry me a river. Because I can't be bothered.

[Kodos]

Would you care to post info. on the thousands of Catholics who were killed in Queen Elizabeth's reign?

Bwahahahahahaha. With the few who did get killed it was because they were linked to repeated attempts to kill her and put queen mary on the throne or for spying for Phillip of Spain.

[Anarch]

"you claim to be pro-Britain so your lack of sympathy for British Protestants is inexplicable!" - Lenny.

To elaborate, Lenny, I don't give a damn much for the European fratricide wars based on the Jesus cult. As much as I respect the Catholic Church as an institution, the influence of the Pope is something I'm not incredibly enthusiastic about.

[Jimbo Gomez]

What influence would that be Ken? I think that if that man had half the influence the churchbashers atrribute to him, the world would look quite different.

[Jonathan]

Bwahahahahahaha. With the few who did get killed it was because they were linked to repeated attempts to kill her and put queen mary on the throne or for spying for Phillip of Spain.
I don't see what's so funny?

For a start there is new evidence coming out as to the multitude of English Catholics killed under "Good Queen Bess" which had previously been air-brushed out of history. Furthermore, the notion that all Catholics killed were spies is just typical of the kind of propeganda for the time. Thirdly, what of all the Irish Catholics killed during her reign? Did they ever try to kill/dethrone her as you've asserted?

[Petr]

Thirdly, what of all the Irish Catholics killed during her reign? Did they ever try to kill/dethrone her as you've asserted?
They were probably plotting rebellion.

After all, the notorious Oliver Cromwell raid on Ireland in the late 1640s was preceded by an ethnic cleansing of Protestants in the early 1640s, it did not "just happen" out of the blue:

"he justified his sack of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in the Irish Rebellion of 1641, calling the massacre, "The righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Ireland_and_Scotland


Petr

[daisy]

don't worry lenny. things will get better. it looks to me like the albinos might start helping the catholic church.
http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=19896#post19896
i did not like some irish-british. it is o.k. now because their offsprings have been changed meaning that uppity british attitude they had has been breeded out of their children and grandchildren. well i can't say much though because they breeded the bad fighting irish out of my children too.

[Alfred_Dunhill]

After all, the notorious Oliver Cromwell raid on Ireland in the late 1640s was preceded by an ethnic cleansing of Protestants in the early 1640s, it did not "just happen" out of the blue:

True.





_____

[Jonathan]

They were probably plotting rebellion.
Probablly plotting rebellion? Oh no my friend, the plotting was all finished, the rebellions were in full swing. That's not the point though.

After all, the notorious Oliver Cromwell raid on Ireland in the late 1640s was preceded by an ethnic cleansing of Protestants in the early 1640s, it did not "just happen" out of the blue
"Raid" and "Ethnic cleansing" are an understatement and overstatement respectively.

[Kodos]

I don't see what's so funny?

For a start there is new evidence coming out as to the multitude of English Catholics killed under "Good Queen Bess" which had previously been air-brushed out of history. Furthermore, the notion that all Catholics killed were spies is just typical of the kind of propeganda for the time. Thirdly, what of all the Irish Catholics killed during her reign? Did they ever try to kill/dethrone her as you've asserted?

Im not sure about the Irish( what % of these Irish Catholics who were killed the rebellion led by the Earl of Tyrone... and in the aftermath), there were no mass executions of dissenters in Elizabeth's reign in England proper though, this is revisionist propaganda( Henry VIII is another story).

[Anarch]

What influence would that be Ken? I think that if that man had half the influence the churchbashers atrribute to him, the world would look quite different.

Don't make me do a Lenny and point out the hordes of spics rolling across the US borders :rofl: The Catholic Church was also hardly neutral in bringing in the Catholic Vietnamese 'refugees' post-Vietnam war to Australia, either. And it's not particularly keen on integration: http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/migref/2005010319.htm

[Jonathan]

Im not sure about the Irish( what % of these Irish Catholics who were killed the rebellion led by the Earl of Tyrone... and in the aftermath)
Those who died in Tyrone's rebellion would have only been a small minority. As for the aftermath...eh, Tyrone's rebellion was still on-going when the Queen was dead.

Your point is that Elizabeth was justified in many of the executions, and maybe from your point of view she was, but that's not the point. Elizabeth had no more justification in killing those people than Mary had in killing her victims.

there were no mass executions of dissenters in Elizabeth's reign in England proper though, this is revisionist propaganda( Henry VIII is another story).
I haven't read it yet, but supposedly there is a book coming out that contradicts your statement above (whether it is genuine or not is another question).

[Milesian]

2005 is the 450th anniversary of the burning to death at the stake of 71 Protestant martyrs in Britain.

289 persons, men, women and children, with one new-born baby, were burnt to death under Mary I ("Bloody Mary") between 1555 and 1558. Another 112 people died in prison from starvation and torture.



Possibly one of the most unbloody times of that period judging by the figures




PART I.
COMMONLY BELIEVED MYTHS

#2. The Myth of "Bloody Mary" vs "Good Queen Bess"

TRUTH. In his book, A History of the Reformation of England and Ireland, the Protestant historian William Cobbett speaks of the deceptive way in which Queen Mary Tudor and Queen Elizabeth I of England have been portrayed in their own English histories.

Concerning the two Monarchs he says, "her reign our deceivers have taught us to call the reign of 'Bloody Mary,' while they have taught us to call that of her sister the 'Golden Days of Good Queen Bess.' They have taken good care never to tell us that for every drop of blood that Mary shed, Elizabeth shed a pint; that the former gave up every fragment of plunder of which the deeds of her predecessors had put in her possession, and that the latter resumed this plunder again, and took from the poor every pittance which had by oversight been left to them; that the former never changed her religion, and that the latter changed from Catholic to Protestand and, then to Catholic again, and then back to Protestant; that the former punished people for departing from the religion in which she and their fathers had been born, and to which she had always adhered; and the latter punished people for not departing from the religion of her and their fathers, and which religion, too she herself professed and openly lived in even at the time of her coronation. Yet we have been taught to call the former 'bloody' and the latter 'good!' And is it not time, then, that this deception too injurious to our Catholic fellow-subjects and so debasing to ourselves, should cease?"
(Willian Cobbett, A History of the Reformation in England and Ireland, #223)


Another Protestant historian Willian Prescott says of Elizabeth I of England: "Elizabeth, inheriting a large share of the bold and bluff King Harry's temperament, was haughty, arrogant, coarse and irascible; Elizabeth was desperately selfish; she was incapable of forgiving, not merely a real injury, but the slightest affront to her vanity; and she was merciless in exacting retribution."
(Willian Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, Vol. II, Chpt. 16).



#3. The Myth of the Vicious, Criminal, Bloodthirsty Irish

TRUTH. From the time of the Protestant Revolt outright calumnies against the Irish were spread to make them look like vicious, criminal, bloodthirsty people. In a speech that Oliver Cromwell gave in Dublin prior to setting out to meet the Irish in battle he spoke, "of the great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish"
(Antonia Fraser, Cromwell, Our Chief of Men, Chpt. 13, Ireland: effussion of blood)

The English invaders saw themselves as, "Israelites about to extirpate the idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan" and that their peace and tranquility "had been rudely disturbed by the vicious actions of the native Irish population who thus deserved the retribution which was now falling upon them, or as Milton was to put it: the Irish by their own ..."



source: Why Apologise For The Spanish Inquisition?
Publisher: Eric Gladkowski February 1, 2000
ISBN: 0970223501

[Jonathan]

Why Apologise For The Spanish Inquisition?
Thanks, that was the book I was thinking about.

[Felix the Cat]

Q. If the Royalists had won the Civil War, would they have behaved differently in Ireland?

[Kodos]

Your point is that Elizabeth was justified in many of the executions, and maybe from your point of view she was, but that's not the point. Elizabeth had no more justification in killing those people than Mary had in killing her victims.

How many Protestant plots to kill Mary were there( even after she married Phillip)...

[Kodos]

Concerning the two Monarchs he says, "her reign our deceivers have taught us to call the reign of 'Bloody Mary,' while they have taught us to call that of her sister the 'Golden Days of Good Queen Bess.' They have taken good care never to tell us that for every drop of blood that Mary shed, Elizabeth shed a pint; that the former gave up every fragment of plunder of which the deeds of her predecessors had put in her possession, and that the latter resumed this plunder again

Examples of this "bloody" reign of Elizabeth( Henry VIII ill concede)? Of course she acted Catholic during her sister's reign... it would have very likely meant her execution not too.

She was definitely nothing compared to Phillip of Spain.

[Jonathan]

Q. If the Royalists had won the Civil War, would they have behaved differently in Ireland?
A. Certainly.

Q. Why do you ask?

[Felix the Cat]

A. Certainly.

Q. Why do you ask?
I'm curious to know to what degree Cromwell's behavior towards the Irish was due to his Calvinism, and how much due to his Englishness

[Jonathan]

How many Protestant plots to kill Mary were there(even after she married Phillip)...
What's the point of this question? Is it something to do with "the killing of rebels is justified, those Catholics were rebels, ergo, the killing of those Catholics was justified"?

[Jonathan]

I'm curious to know to what degree Cromwell's behavior towards the Irish was due to his Calvinism, and how much due to his Englishness
I'd say it was due to his Puritanism(Calvinism) and his Parliamentarianism. From a religious perspective the Irish Catholics were sinners and barbarians et al., but from his Parliamentarian perspective, the Irish Catholics were Royalists. It was vital for Cromwell(politically) to take control of Ireland because if he didn't, the Island could be used as a base for King Charles I or his posterity to invade England(this was the main reason Cromwell came here, not to punish anyone for anything). Large contingents of Irishmen fought for Charles I in the Civil War(There were landings in Wales and also a landing in Scotland during the Wars of the Covenant). Historically this has always been the case. The British threat to re-invade Ireland during WWII was because of the fear that the Irish would side with the Nazis. The harshness of the treatement of the rebels of 1916 was down to the fact that they had German support. The 1798 rebellion was put down with unreasonable force because of the French landing. King James I raised his armies in Ireland to fight William of Orange. Queen Elizabeth was constantly terrified of Spanish and Italian landings in Ireland. Henry VIII had to tighten his grip on Ireland, not for protestantism, but because Henry was a Lancastrain and Ireland was predominantly Yorkist(Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel both invaded England from Ireland during the War of the Roses). Even as early as the Norman invasion of England, the sons of Harold Godwinson(Saxon King of England) were supported by Diarmuid MacMaol na mBó when invading Bristol against the Normans.

If the Royalists had won they probablly would have overturned the Plantation of Ulster and the various other land grants and given much of the land back to the Irish... Although later on down the years they would have tried to introduce English customs with would have lead to friction again.

[Kodos]

What's the point of this question? Is it something to do with "the killing of rebels is justified, those Catholics were rebels, ergo, the killing of those Catholics was justified"?

Yes. *filler filler filler*

[Jonathan]

Yes. *filler filler filler*
But couldn't one just as easily argue that the Protestants of Mary's reign were killed justly as defiant rebels for not being Catholics? The seperation of Secular Politics and Religion is nigh impossible during this period...This could go down some ugly Locke vs. Rousseau vs. Hobbs vs. Machiavelli vs. etc route.

[Kodos]

But couldn't one just as easily argue that the Protestants of Mary's reign were killed justly as defiant rebels for not being Catholics?

The important distinction is they weren't trying to kill Mary( there was a rebellion when she married Phillip but not aimed at deposing her). And British interest were best served by a break from Rome anyway.

The seperation of Secular Politics and Religion is nigh impossible during this period...This could go down some ugly Locke vs. Rousseau vs. Hobbs vs. Machiavelli vs. etc route.

Public religion( Elizabeth didn't care about what superstition people held privately "windows into men's souls") is hardly ever really seperable from politics.

[Jonathan]

The important distinction is they weren't trying to kill Mary( there was a rebellion when she married Phillip but not aimed at deposing her). And British interest were best served by a break from Rome anyway.
Rebellion is rebellion no?


Public religion( Elizabeth didn't care about what superstition people held privately "windows into men's souls") is hardly ever really seperable from politics.
Isn't that what I just said?