Wars and Conflicts permalink
windows into men's souls
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by potato (U12977864) on Friday, 5th September 2008
What was Elizabeth I was saying about windows into men's souls? what did she mean? Why did she say it? I am learning English history as a speaker of other language so please keep it simple.
-
Message 2
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Friday, 5th September 2008
That as far as she was concerned, it was up to individuals what they believed, and none of her business as Head of State.
It was an admirable view and stance, but proved impossible to maintain when she was excommunicated and to be catholic also carried with it the Papal licence that any who wished to could kill the Queen without commiting sin.
Literally the words mean that she did not wish to create openings into men's minds so she could peer at and pry into their most intimate and personal religious beliefs.
Her sister Mary had persecuted protestants, and Elizabeth had suffered imprisonment and house arrest and almost death, as a result. On her accession to the throne, she desired a realm in which all men (and women - but they were of course subject to their husbands at the time) possessed freedom of conscience.
Hope this helps,
Phil -
Message 3
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 6th September 2008
What was Elizabeth I was saying about windows into men's souls? what did she mean? Why did she say it? I am learning English history as a speaker of other language so please keep it simple. Â
She meant that she required religious conformity, but not necessarily belief. As long as you turned up at your Parish Church on Sunday, you wouldn't be hassled as to what you personally thoughtabout Transubstantiation or the like.
By contrast, The Spanish Inquisition often investigated the many times great-grandchildren of converted Jews or Moslems, who had been practising Catholics all their lives, but who were suspected of performing Jewish or Moslem rituals on the sly.
Elizabeth's attitude hardened later, after the Pope called for her deposition, and Jesuit Missionaries were executed as supposed (and sometimes actual) agents of the Spanish Crown. -
Message 4
Posted by potato (U12977864) on Monday, 8th September 2008
Thank you all very much.
-
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
It has been estimated that about 300 Protestants were put to death under Mary I (1553-58) for their religious beliefs and about 200 Catholics during the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) although it is true that Elizabeth was the subject of numerous assassination plots especially after the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1587 when the Pope claimed it was a religious duty of English Catholics to murder Elizabeth.
-
Message 6
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
... the Pope claimed it was a religious duty of English Catholics to murder Elizabeth. Â
Hi Allan,
I am aware of the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis (Pius V, I think). However, I would be grateful if you could supply me with a reference and the text of the bull in which the pope exhorted English Catholics to murder Elizabeth. Thanks. -
Message 7
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
In the publication the Pope called Eliza a Bastard and talked of her being deposed. He questioned whether her behaviour did not make her,"unable to reigne" and went on, "others declare her unworthy to live". He purposes to renew the sentence of his predecessors and deprive her of all her authority and then goes on to encourage the Papists to ,'concur by all means possible to her chastisement."
The woman was one of the most intelligent women of her age, as my aunty always said, 'she wasn't daft'. She had seen her mother Queen Ann and her cousin Queen Jane both executed. If you lost the power and strength of the Crown, what was left? The Big Brother House? You'r being naive. Already four English Kings had died at the hands of their subjects Elizabeth wasn't going to suffer quietly or without a struggle.
The interesting thing is that for the second time in English history the pope had interfered in English politics. The question should be where do people get the idea that he has the authority to decide who is the Head of the English State? Had he the authority? If he had where is it now?
It was this interference that caused Elizabeth and her government to persecute the papists, the blame should be laid fairly and squarely on the Pope. -
Message 8
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
Fred's Dad,
I have no axe to grind here. I have an objective interest in history, not a subjective one. I could care less whether the pope had the right or the authority, then or at any other time, to interfere in England's affairs. For me it is a matter of standards. Am I to accept that these boards have sunk so low that unsubstantiated and intemperate statements may go unchallenged.
Allan D is normally quite measured in what he says, and accurate. I'm only interested in his historical source for claiming that the pope exhorted Elizabeth's subjects to murder her. It wasn't in the bull Regnans in Excelsis.
Can you give me the reference yourself? You have put some given some direct quotes. Where do these come from? -
Message 9
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 9th September 2008
Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:07 GMT, in reply to Mikestone8 in message 3
She meant that she required religious conformity, but not necessarily belief. As long as you turned up at your Parish Church on Sunday, you wouldn't be hassled as to what you personally thought about Transubstantiation or the like.Â
Oliver Cromwell (who seems to have had admired Elizabeth somewhat) seems to have had something similar in mind when he wrote his 1649 'Declaration for the Undeceiving of Deluded and Seduced People' when, referring to Irish Roman Catholics, he observed "As for the People, what thoughts they have in matters of Religion in their own breasts I cannot reach; but shall think it my duty, if they walk honestly and peaceably, Not to cause them in the least to suffer for the same." -
Message 10
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Mick_mac Msg8.
The quotes I made came from a contemporary document refered to as,
ÒA DECLARATION OF THE SENTENCE AND DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH, THE USURPER AND PRETENDED QUEEN OF ENGLAND.Ó
It is printed in a publication of the Church Historical Society, published bythe SPCK 1901.
This book a;so contains a copy of the Bull.
It not only incites the Ôinhabitants of the said Country, to withdraw from service and loyalty to the ,Õparty pursued and her adherents,Õ .......and that they forth with unite themself to the ,ÕCatholicÕ, Army conducted by the most noble and victorius Prince Alexander Farnesius, Duke of Parma and Placentia..... The writer goes on to warn anyone who doesnÕt assist in the work ahead that will suffer condigne punishment. Also for those who do actively help the forces of the papacy, thereÕs a promise of pardons for deed committed.
To me they are being offered forgiveness of sins ,hopefully, for deposing and killing Eliza.
In the Bull.
Ã’We declare that she,(Eliza,) has forfeited her pretended titles to the aforesaid kingdom...
We also declare that the nobles, the subjects and the people who have taken any oath to her are forever released from that oath and from every obligation of allegiance and fealty and obedienceÓ.
What the pope is doing is making an open day on Elizabeth, in the event it backfired and the people to suffer where the few who joined the Roman Camp.
Interestingly the result was so horrific that the papacy ,reluctantly and far to late, tried to ameliorate the consequences by toning down the incitements.
I must say that I do not feel that AlanDÕs mail was in anyway intemperate, or indeed unsubstantiated and that in all my years of studying the period and teaching the same AllanDÕs appreciation of the Bull is quite general.
THE ENGLISH REFORMATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
REV. WE COLLINS. MA.
³§±Ê°ä°Ìý
Bettensen. Documents of the Christian Church. pg, 240. extract. Offord Paperbacks.1967.
luckyfredsdad. -
Message 11
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
³¢³Ü³¦°ì²â¹ó°ù±ð»å’s¶Ù²¹»å,
Thanks for the reference. You are quoting the 1588 bull of Pope Sixtus V in support of the forces of the Spanish Armada under the command of the Duke of Parma. Regnans in Excelsis, the bull excommunicating Elizabeth I, was promulgated by Pius V in 1570 and reinforced by his two successors Gregory XIII and Sixtus V. None of these bulls exhorted anyone to murder or kill Elizabeth. The text of the bull you are quoting can be found at this link:
You have been selective in quoting from it. The preamble explains the papacy’s point of view regarding Elizabeth I who was illegitimate (a bastard), born out of adultery. It cites her own father Henry VIII as having declared her illegitimate and unable to rule (by the 1536 Act of Succession). She is accused of promoting heresy in her kingdom and provoking rebellion in Ireland. It states that she continues to violate her own coronation oaths as well acting contrary to accords made with the papacy in the time of Henry II and King John.
It then goes on to renew the sentence of excommunication of the two previous popes; it absolves her subjects from their loyalty and obedience to her; and it exhorts them to ‘concur by all means possible to her chastisement’, but only
To the end that she which so many ways has forsaken God and his Church, being now destitute of wor[l]dly comfort, and abandoned of all, may acknowledge her offence, and humbly submit herself to the judgments of the Highest.Â
And now comes the bit relevant to the Spanish Armada and Catholic support for it:
Be it therefore notified to the inhabitants of the said countries, and to all other persons, that they observe diligently the premisses, withdrawing all succour public and private, from the party pursued and her adherents, … : And that forthwith they unite themselves to the Catholic army conducted by the most noble and victorious prince, Alexander Farnesius, Duke of Parma and Placentia, in name of his Majesty, … to help and concur as is aforesaid (if need shall be) to the deposition and chastisement of the said persons, and restitution of the holy Catholic faith.Â
The whole tenor of this document is at odds with your phrase ‘deposing and killing Eliza’ and Allan D’s ‘the Pope claimed it was a religious duty of English Catholics to murder Elizabeth’.
Moreover … the intention of His Holiness, of the King Catholic, and the Duke's Highness in this enterprise, is not to invade and conquer these kingdoms, change laws, privileges or customs, bereave of liberty or livelihood any man (other than rebels and obstinate persons) or make mutation in anything, except such, as by common accord, between His Holiness, the King Catholic, and the states of the land, shall be thought necessary, for the restitution and continuance of the Catholic religion, and punishment of the usurper and her adherents. Assuring all men, that the controversies which may arise by the deprivation of this woman, or upon other cause, either between particular parties, or touching the succession to the Crown, or between the Church and Commonwealth, or in other wise whatsoever, shall be decided and determined wholly according to justice and Christian equity without any injury or prejudice to any person. And there shall not only due care be had, to save from spoil the Catholics of these countries, which have so long endured, but mercy also shown to such penitent persons, as submit themselves to the Captain general of this army. Â
You say I am naïve (and I know exactly why you say that) but this document only seems to sanction reasonable commensurate force and nowhere abets or encourages the ‘killing’ or ‘murder’ of Elizabeth. These words are intemperate because they are subjective. Your own lack of objectivity is evident in your selective quoting from this document and your 'interpretation' of it. You need to stand off from it and see it dispassionately. -
Message 12
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
You say I am naïve (and I know exactly why you say that) but this document only seems to sanction reasonable commensurate force and nowhere abets or encourages the ‘killing’ or ‘murder’ of Elizabeth.Â
Are there any instances from that era of a monarch being deposed without being subsequently murdered? -
Message 13
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
The Bull of Pope Sixtus the Fifth in support of the forces of the Spanish Armada!Â
Thanks for the information regarding the above, the first quote! The later info is from "Regnan in Excelsis." Howandever, apart from a wrong source, and wrong date, 1570 and 1588, I really do not see that apart from highlighting my carelessness it makes any difference! In the Bull, (1570 ) Elizabeth is faced with threats that have to be looked at in the knowledge of what we know about the times and customs of that age?
Where did Queens go when they had lost power?
Queen Ann, a Kings wife and Queen Jane a sovereign queen, had both been executed. At least one other queen had followed , what was there for Elizabeth? A retirement home? Sometime later a King of France was assassinated and 80yrs or so later a King of England went to the block! That, in my opinion is where Elizabeth would have gone if the Spaniards and the papal party had won the very real struggle.
You are quite correct in saying that my quotes were.'selective,' . I copied the threats, the rudeness ,however, is an indication of the contempt the Roman Leaders had for their opponents. It wasn't only the papacy that showed their disdain regarding Eliza, have you read the writings of Parsons, or Allan and their kin regarding the Queen? Even by todays standards it is mind boggling .
The Spanish Army, 'Parma,' was the general in charge had a history of persecution and cruelty that equalled the SS some 70yrs ago. What the Romanists and their supporters were offering was civil war, luckily it backfired ,it seems that the rank and file had more sense than the leadership.
Even so, we only have to look ahead to the Gunpowder Plot, to see just what lengths these people would go to in obtaining their way. They proposed to blow up the entire government and nobility Roman as well as Anglican. Only the Princess Elizabeth, grand daughter of The Scots Queen was to be spared so she could be used to give legitimacy to the Romanist regime.
Again, I point out that what was being done, or what was to be done if they had succeeded was a major interference in English Politics. The papacy was interested in exercising power over the English throne and people. In my opinion it was a political exercise. -
Message 14
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Are there any instances from that era of a monarch being deposed without being subsequently murdered?Â
Don't think so.
Murdered?!
The OED defines murder as 'the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another'.
Read the bulls. Although the popes (and, presumably, her own father) viewed her reign as unlawful and sought to see her deposed they were not necessarily countenancing her killing. Murdered is a loaded word.
Again, read what they said. Follow the link I provided. -
Message 15
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
In the Bull, (1570 ) Elizabeth is faced with threats that have to be looked at in the knowledge of what we know about the times and customs of that age?Â
Indeed, but the popes never exhorted anybody to kill Elizabeth. The 1588 bull to which I gave a link, is the most threatening yet despite encouraging Catholics to support the Spansh Armada it admonishes restraint and talks of settling things in accordance with Christian justice. It warns against unnecessary violence.
Where did Queens go when they had lost power?
Queen Ann, a Kings wife and Queen Jane a sovereign queen, had both been executed. Â
Would you then say they were ‘murdered’?
At least one other queen had followed , what was there for Elizabeth? A retirement home? Sometime later a King of France was assassinated and 80yrs or so later a King of England went to the block! That, in my opinion is where Elizabeth would have gone if the Spaniards and the papal party had won the very real struggle.
It wasn't only the papacy that showed their disdain regarding Eliza, have you read the writings of Parsons, or Allan and their kin regarding the Queen? Â
Even if I accept that the pope was disdainful of Elizabeth that is a long way from wanting people to ‘murder’, or ‘kill’ her, if you wish.
My original challenge still stands. Show me where a pope exhorted Catholics to kill Elizabeth. So far you have not. The pope wished her to repent the error of her ways. You have merely offered an interpretation of the bull which goes beyond what it actually says. As you say, it is your opinion. -
Message 16
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
I made a mess of that last post but I think you can get my drift.
Whatever you say about the times that were in it and the deposition and execution or killing of rulers, the use of the word 'murder' is prejudicial and subjective. Its use is emotive and partisan. -
Message 17
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Read the bulls. Although the popes (and, presumably, her own father) viewed her reign as unlawful and sought to see her deposed they were not necessarily countenancing her killing. Â
They countenanced her deposition in an era when deposition implied murder - either as the original means of removal or subsequently to prevent the dethroned monarch from becoming a focus of opposition. To endorse deposition was to endorse murder, even if they were too mealymouthed to say so in the Bulls.
Not sure what you mean about her father. An act of Parliament, assented to by him, placed her third in line of succession, after her brother and elder sister. She had succeeded under the provisions of that Act. If that wasn't what Henry VIII wanted, why did he give Royal Assent to it? -
Message 18
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
The word murder is prejudicial and subjective.Its use is emotive and partisan.Â
Your certainly correct about the word murder being emotive and 'partisan.' Yet what other word can one use. The pope had no army but he couldn't be accused of pacifism,he used money and his supporter's men and money to kill. I refer you to The King of Spain and to the Emperor.
The Pope had a history of military intervention in England from 1066, William the Butcher of Falaise was subsidised by the Papacy. He then cleared out all the English Bishops and put in more compliant French ones. The pope again interfered in the time of King John. Against Elizabeth and then against James 2nd. The papacy gave money to William of Orange to invade England and usurp the Crown from the Roman Catholic James.
The pope's had little or no compuction against using violence and without being a pacifist I see quite well from violence death raises its ugly head. Elizabeth was lucky. -
Message 19
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 10th September 2008
You are referring to the 3rd Succession Act. See
However, I was referring to the previous 1536 Succession Act.
With regard to murder all the succession acts seem to make a nonsense out of the notion of lawful/unlawful.
What it all boils down is this: Might is Right. Whoever had the biggest stick dictated what was lawful/unlawful. That is what those times were about.
No matter what way you cut it, the pope never encouraged anyone to kill Elizabeth. -
Message 20
Posted by potato (U12977864) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
Thank you all very much again.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.