A chilling thought

Think about this timetable, if there had been no English Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":

1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who suffers ante mortem cremation.
1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in high places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern science is based.

A chilling thought?

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> Think about this timetable, if there had been no English
Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":
>
> 1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who suffers
ante mortem cremation.
> 1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in high
places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
> 1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern
science is based.
>
> A chilling thought?
>
>

Stephen, we never ever had an Inquisition in England.

Specifically, the Yorkist brand of Catholicism was pretty live-&-let-
live - I refer you, for instance, to earlier threads on alchemy;
Newton was incidentally an alchemist.
The Papacy and the Spanish brand of Catholicism were another matter
of course, and it was this that Mary Tudor introduced. I'm not sure
how events in the outside world would have affected English Catholic
attitudes if we'd never had any Tudors or any Reformation.
One might as well ponder how things would have turned out if the
Edward VI or Cromwell style of Protestantism had triumphed.
Or if the Catholic Church's Forty English Martyrs (who include
Margaret of Clarence) had not become victims of Tudor Reformers.

Unfortunately, the idea that conformity had to be enforced with death
and torture existed on both sides of the religious divide.

Marie

I think we have a good example of what the triumph of an Edward VI type of
Protestantism would have had in the reign of Elizabeth.

Remember that religion was ideology in those days. While the Spaniards and
some others were just plain crazy, the assumption in most of Europe was
that dissent in religion was inseparable from treason in politics- a
notable difference between the reigns of Elizabeth and her sister, Mary.

Bob Waters

At 09:28 PM 12/23/2003, you wrote:
>--- In , "Stephen LARK"
><smlark@i...> wrote:
> > Think about this timetable, if there had been no English
>Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":
> >
> > 1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who suffers
>ante mortem cremation.
> > 1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in high
>places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
> > 1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern
>science is based.
> >
> > A chilling thought?
> >
> >
>
>Stephen, we never ever had an Inquisition in England.
>
>Specifically, the Yorkist brand of Catholicism was pretty live-&-let-
>live - I refer you, for instance, to earlier threads on alchemy;
>Newton was incidentally an alchemist.
>The Papacy and the Spanish brand of Catholicism were another matter
>of course, and it was this that Mary Tudor introduced. I'm not sure
>how events in the outside world would have affected English Catholic
>attitudes if we'd never had any Tudors or any Reformation.
>One might as well ponder how things would have turned out if the
>Edward VI or Cromwell style of Protestantism had triumphed.
>Or if the Catholic Church's Forty English Martyrs (who include
>Margaret of Clarence) had not become victims of Tudor Reformers.
>
>Unfortunately, the idea that conformity had to be enforced with death
>and torture existed on both sides of the religious divide.
>
>Marie
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//>http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>[email protected]
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Remember that religion was ideology in those days. While the Spaniards and
some others were just plain crazy, the assumption in most of Europe was
that dissent in religion was inseparable from treason in politics- a
notable difference between the reigns of Elizabeth and her sister, Mary.

Bob Waters
--------------------------------
Well, far be it from me, growing up with a Spaniard for a father, to deny that Spaniards can be completely insane! However, I feel that much of the general attitude in Castile, anyway, during "our" time springs from the Moorish occupation and the long, lagging, complicated and obstacle-ridden Reconquista which was such a feature of Castilian life and mentality from about 800 - 1492. This, plus the Jewish population in Spain, which increased, incidentally, after the Masada-like events at Clifford's Tower, plus economics, plus geography, had a great deal to do with shaping this "insanity". It was not, though, an unbroken era of hostilities: for extended periods, there was a great measure of tolerance between the three major groups, interrupted by great measures of murderous hostility.

There was also a large measure of interchange between the various cultures, which had an effect on the sort of lifestyle and also attitude toward established religion: as an example, in 1464, Rozmital and his company made a tour of most of Europe, circling from their Bohemian homeland, up into England, down into France, into Spain/Portugal and off into Italy before going back home. The two chroniclers in Rozmital's company were clear about the state of "Christianity" in Spain: as far as they were concerned, it was the least Christian, most barbaric, most pagan (oy, so disgraceful! So many Muslim habits among the people and the royality of Castile. For shame, forsooth) -- as well as one of the most lawless kingdoms -- they had to suffer through. The continuous economic, political and psychological state of the "Spains" until the Catholic Kings made the Wars of the Roses seem fairly tame by comparison. Rozmital and co. were disgusted with Iberia and were very happy to leave it for the more civilized realms of Italy. This sort of thing, coupled with the ambitions of the Catholic Kings, the traumatically-swift shift from this state to world power, and the draconian methods needed to pull things into line, might go some distance to explain what you perceive as Spain's "insanity". It might actually be, at least in part, a continuation of conditioned battlefield mentality. The fragility of cooperation with royalty showed itself with the advent of the House of Habsburg. Charles V and his father, Philip the Handsome, both got a strong taste of that battlefield mentality.

The education given to the daughters of the Catholic Kings, which included tutoring by Italian Humanist scholars, as well as the active role in governing they were expected to play, is an indication that knowledge was not, in fact, rejected in Spain. So is the the flourishing of the poetic arts during the economically and politically disastrous reign of Juan II of Castile. It was under a pope, too, that the Western European calendar was corrected, and it was disagreement between faiths that, today, confuses me with Old Style and New Style dates (didn't "they" realize how much trouble I'd have doing the math?).

As noted, too, Catholics did not and do not have a monopoly on religious intolerance, though they've certainly had more time to practice it than the various branches of Protestants, many of which formed in response to intolerance within ranks: as far forward as the 1840s, Anne Bronte had to be very cautious in expressing her leanings toward the perceived heresy of Universalism. I will, in passing (I'm at work and have to stop now) mention only witches, belief and persecution of were shared by both religious parites, and that Newton himself believed in witchcraft.

Maria
elena@...

At 08:57 AM 12/24/2003, you wrote:
>As noted, too, Catholics did not and do not have a monopoly on religious
>intolerance, though they've certainly had more time to practice it than
>the various branches of Protestants, many of which formed in response to
>intolerance within ranks: as far forward as the 1840s, Anne Bronte had to
>be very cautious in expressing her leanings toward the perceived heresy of
>Universalism. I will, in passing (I'm at work and have to stop now)
>mention only witches, belief and persecution of were shared by both
>religious parites, and that Newton himself believed in witchcraft.
>
>Maria
>elena@...

As a Lutheran- a member of a group with a record much cleaner in this
regard than our reputation- I can sympathize, though Elizabethan
Protestantism is the form we're discussing, specifically as a hint of what
Edwardine Protestantism might have been had the boy lived. Elizabeth did,
indeed, persecute Catholics, but purely because Catholicism in her day was
virtually synonymous with treason (the Pope, after all, had placed England
under the interdict!) She herself was hardly a religious ideologue. She
would tolerate pretty much anybody who believed pretty much anything, as
long as it didn't include the notion that she should be deposed :). I'm
sure many in the group are familiar with her Eucharistic theology:

It was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread, and brake it.
And what His words did make it,
That I believe, and take it.

What would the Latin be for, "Whatever?"

--Bob Waters

At 17:25 24/12/2003, Bob wrote:
>As a Lutheran- a member of a group with a record much cleaner in this
>regard than our reputation- I can sympathize, though Elizabethan
>Protestantism is the form we're discussing, specifically as a hint of what
>Edwardine Protestantism might have been had the boy lived. Elizabeth did,
>indeed, persecute Catholics, but purely because Catholicism in her day was
>virtually synonymous with treason (the Pope, after all, had placed England
>under the interdict!) She herself was hardly a religious ideologue. She
>would tolerate pretty much anybody who believed pretty much anything, as
>long as it didn't include the notion that she should be deposed :). I'm
>sure many in the group are familiar with her Eucharistic theology:


Yep. Elizabeth's theology remained primarily RC (which is one reason why
the Church of England still uses the same form of rite as the RC church).
She'd probably have remained RC were it not for the tricky point that the
Pope maintained she was illegitimate and therefore couldn't hold the
throne. Also, unlike her sister, she listened to popular opinion and the
people did *not* want to go back to being RC. This probably had a lot less
to do with theological differences and a lot more to do with xenophobia -
one of the reasons that Mary was so unpopular was because her husband was
Spanish.

Jenny

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> Think about this timetable, if there had been no English
Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":
>
> 1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who suffers
ante mortem cremation.
> 1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in high
places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
> 1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern
science is based.
>
> A chilling thought?
>

Before Christopher Columbus approached Ferdinand and Isabella for
financing for his first voyage to discover a new route to the Far
East, his brother Bartolomeo had an appointment with Henry VII to
propose that England sponsor the voyage. Henry did not keep the
appointment.

It is interesting to speculate on whether Richard would have invested
in the venture. If he had, the "River of Gold" might have flowed
from the New World to England, not Spain (assuming the Engish would
hae been even half as ruthless and avaricious as the Spanish) and
history might have been different, indeed.

Katy

I suppose my last contribution really opened a can of worms (or should that be Worms?). Anyway, Merry Christmas to all Ricardians. I shall be declaring the votes on "TV Monarchs" shortly - is Nathaniel Parker (Charles II in The Private Life of Samuel Pepys) a contender? Would Richard Griffiths have made a good Henry VIII (nice voice, heavy enough, permanent beard)? Hasn't our case in the media been strengthened in the past few decades?
----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: A chilling thought


--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> Think about this timetable, if there had been no English
Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":
>
> 1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who suffers
ante mortem cremation.
> 1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in high
places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
> 1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern
science is based.
>
> A chilling thought?
>

Before Christopher Columbus approached Ferdinand and Isabella for
financing for his first voyage to discover a new route to the Far
East, his brother Bartolomeo had an appointment with Henry VII to
propose that England sponsor the voyage. Henry did not keep the
appointment.

It is interesting to speculate on whether Richard would have invested
in the venture. If he had, the "River of Gold" might have flowed
from the New World to England, not Spain (assuming the Engish would
hae been even half as ruthless and avaricious as the Spanish) and
history might have been different, indeed.

Katy



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > Think about this timetable, if there had been no English
> Reformation, and what happened during Mary's "Interruption":
> >
> > 1598 The Inquisition catches up with Giordano Bruno who
suffers
> ante mortem cremation.
> > 1633 It catches up with Galileo Galilei who has friends in
high
> places and merely suffers house arrest for life.
> > 1670s Newton finishes work on gravity, upon which all modern
> science is based.
> >
> > A chilling thought?
> >
>
> Before Christopher Columbus approached Ferdinand and Isabella for
> financing for his first voyage to discover a new route to the Far
> East, his brother Bartolomeo had an appointment with Henry VII to
> propose that England sponsor the voyage. Henry did not keep the
> appointment.
>
> It is interesting to speculate on whether Richard would have
invested
> in the venture. If he had, the "River of Gold" might have flowed
> from the New World to England, not Spain (assuming the Engish would
> hae been even half as ruthless and avaricious as the Spanish) and
> history might have been different, indeed.
>
> Katy

Funny, I've often wondered about that too. There are just too many
imponderables to be able to make any predictions based on a different
dynastic succession at any given point.

I also suspect that, however ineptly it came about, the English
solution to an English problem - ie more or less keeping Catholicism
but not the Pope - might have been the most nearly inevitable
outcome, rather tnan the "normal" Lutheran route. I do get the
impression that there was political frustration with papal
interference (with which I sympathise - what WAS Pope Innocent doing
excommunicating Yorkist rebels against Henry VII, for instance??),
but no particularly widespread enthusiasm for more radical religious
change.

But it was carried out ineptly. Elizabeth did her best to patch it
all over, but the divisions in the country were by that time very
deep, not to mention the enemies made abroad and the total mess with
Ireland.

As for Spain, yes I've personally always had the impression that that
country's peculiar situation went a long way towards explaining the
particular brand of Catholicism you get there during and after the
Yorkist period. And I would suspect the lack of a Reformation there
was more due to the siege mentality than anything else. Countries
shrugged off Rome, surely, when they had developed a confident sense
of themselves and their own autonomy. I don't really understand the
trading nation theory I'm afraid (except in so far as a plain type of
religion probably suits the urban merchant mindset) because I don't
really see how the Pope interfered with trade. But I'd be interested
to find out.
Anyway, I've never really studied Ferdinand & Isabella, but they were
certainly empire builders with a siege mentality, and I must say
Isabella always comes across to me as a very ruthless political
animal. She was cosying up to Richard when he was King, and who
knows, he may have married a Spanish princess given time. Which is
another ingredient to be added to the mix of what-ifs.

Merry Xmas one and all,

Marie

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:00:59 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: A chilling thought
>
> Before Christopher Columbus approached Ferdinand and Isabella for
> financing for his first voyage to discover a new route to the Far
> East, his brother Bartolomeo had an appointment with Henry VII to
> propose that England sponsor the voyage. Henry did not keep the
> appointment.

Well somebody probably mentioned to Henry that Christopher wanted money, so
naturally he suddenly got busy elsewhere!
> It is interesting to speculate on whether Richard would have invested
> in the venture. If he had, the "River of Gold" might have flowed
> from the New World to England, not Spain (assuming the Engish would
> hae been even half as ruthless and avaricious as the Spanish) and
> history might have been different, indeed.
Richard would have wanted to go with him probably, but i think would
definitely have financed the voyage.
And the Spanish Empire would not have come into existence, and South
America would speak English.
Paul

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> Funny, I've often wondered about that too. There are just too many
> imponderables to be able to make any predictions based on a different
> dynastic succession at any given point.
>
> I also suspect that, however ineptly it came about, the English
> solution to an English problem - ie more or less keeping Catholicism
> but not the Pope - might have been the most nearly inevitable
> outcome, rather tnan the "normal" Lutheran route.

But that *wasn't* the outcome. The Edwardian and Elizabethan churches,
insofar as they had any theological content at all
were decisively Protestant in doctrine. Cramner et al were hardly
"Catholic" in any sense, and it was they who set the theological
direction of Anglicanism far more than Henry VIII. So much of Catholic
doctrine rested on Papal authority alone that it's hard for me to see
how the theology could have long survived Henry in the absence of a
renewed allegience to Rome.

> I do get the
> impression that there was political frustration with papal
> interference (with which I sympathise - what WAS Pope Innocent doing
> excommunicating Yorkist rebels against Henry VII, for instance??),
> but no particularly widespread enthusiasm for more radical religious
> change.

The same might be said for Saxony or Scandanavia at the time.

>
> But it was carried out ineptly. Elizabeth did her best to patch it
> all over, but the divisions in the country were by that time very
> deep, not to mention the enemies made abroad and the total mess with
> Ireland.

But the country wasn't all that divided! And Elizabeth's handling of
religious matters was anything but inept. She was not in the slightest
concerned with theology. She was concerned with her throne. Elizabeth's
attitude played a large role in determining the theological character of
Anglicanism to this day (an Episcopal seminarian in my clinical training
program described the central tenet of Anglicanism as "justification by
good taste :)"). It finds its identity in loyalty and obedience to an
ecclesiastical structure, with little if any theological "glue" holding
it together. That is exactly the kind of broad, national church that
Elizabeth set out to create, and she succeeded brilliantly. You and I
might have our critiques of her approach from a theological point of
view, but it's important to remember that theology was of no concern to
her whatsoever. If anything, it was a divisive factor which got in the
way of her uniting the vast majority of the English people in one
ecclesiastical structure under her control.

>
> As for Spain, yes I've personally always had the impression that that
> country's peculiar situation went a long way towards explaining the
> particular brand of Catholicism you get there during and after the
> Yorkist period. And I would suspect the lack of a Reformation there
> was more due to the siege mentality than anything else. Countries
> shrugged off Rome, surely, when they had developed a confident sense
> of themselves and their own autonomy. I don't really understand the
> trading nation theory I'm afraid (except in so far as a plain type of
> religion probably suits the urban merchant mindset) because I don't
> really see how the Pope interfered with trade. But I'd be interested
> to find out.

Lutheranism is not necessarily a "plain" type of religion at all. And
you're looking for a spiritual explanation to an economic and political
phenomenon.You set forth the outlines of it nicely in the previous
sentence. The Pope didn't interfere with trade. He simply insisted, in a
thousand different ways, on a cut of the profit! Besides this, there is
a normal and understandable tendency to align geopoliticlly with those
who have similar political and economic interests, and most of the
countries that fit the bill for England went over to the Reformation.
It's striking that you can draw a line across Europe, and pretty
generally predict whether a country remained Catholic or became
Protestant or Lutheran (many Lutherans, like Anglicans, do not regard
themselves as Protestants) by whether it is found geographically north
or south of the line. I would argue that a combination of geography and
the same cultural traits which promoted the acquisition of wealth
through trade and eventually through industrialization played a strong
role in determining which side of the "Cold War" a nation came down on.
Specifically theological concerns had little to do with it. And again,
the relative prosperity, not of the ruling class, but of the country as
a whole seems to be the single factor besides geography involved. Hence,
Ireland - one of the few exceptions to the geographical rule, and one
with a history of political hostility to a Protestant power- remained
Catholic. The only exception in the opposite direction I can see is
Scotland, a poor country north of that line where the political push was
toward Protestantism because of unique internal factors.

Whether a country eventually became Protestant or Catholic was a
geopolitical question. It was the NATO/Warsaw Pact dichotomy of the 16th
Century. Theology had less to do with it than those on either side today
might wish- and the Church of England is the direct legacy of
Elizabeth's attempt to establish a broad, theologically diverse
institution.

On the other hand, it should be noted that while Henry VIII did indeed
attempt to establish a kind of "Catholicism without the Pope," those
with whom he surrounded himself in his latter years were convinced, if
discrete Protestants. This helps account for
the fact that Edward VI was a deeply devout and committed Calvinist. An
Edwardian church likely would have followed suit. But I suspect that the
need to unity would eventually have led to something very much like
Elizabeth hit upon, perhaps in the next reign. As you note, the division
ran deep, even if the overwhelming majority of the English people sided
with the established church.

Merry Christmas to you and all,

Bob Waters

Jennifer Delaney wrote:

> Yep. Elizabeth's theology remained primarily RC (which is one reason why
> the Church of England still uses the same form of rite as the RC church).
> She'd probably have remained RC were it not for the tricky point that the
> Pope maintained she was illegitimate and therefore couldn't hold the
> throne. Also, unlike her sister, she listened to popular opinion and the
> people did *not* want to go back to being RC. This probably had a lot
> less
> to do with theological differences and a lot more to do with xenophobia -
> one of the reasons that Mary was so unpopular was because her husband was
> Spanish.

I would question whether Elizabeth had any theology at all. She was
doubtless Catholic in her personal habits, having grown up that way. On
the other hand, the Lutheran church also uses the historic liturgy. It's
hard for me to see Elizabeth being committed to any church adherence to
which didn't support her politically in some way. If she had been the
daughter of Catherine, she might have remained Catholic. But of course,
then the rest of the history of the era would have been far different-
and I have no doubt that England would have eventually landed in the
Protestant camp anyway.

Bob Waters

Bob Waters

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:00:59 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: A chilling thought
>
> Before Christopher Columbus approached Ferdinand and Isabella for
> financing for his first voyage to discover a new route to the Far
> East, his brother Bartolomeo had an appointment with Henry VII to
> propose that England sponsor the voyage. Henry did not keep the
> appointment.

Well somebody probably mentioned to Henry that Christopher wanted money,
so
naturally he suddenly got busy elsewhere!

Paul<<<

Hi, all:

Columbus, no slouch at the avarice game, almost made his own deal fall
through with the Catholic Kings because his demands were so exorbitant.
Among other signs of hubris, he wanted (and eventually got) the title of
Admiral of the Ocean Sea, a position reserved only for Iberia royalty,
and, I believe, specifically for the royalty of Aragon, which had more
of a maritime perspective than Castile did. Columbus also did a bit of
shifty paper and map confiscation when in the royal Portuguese library.
His administration in the New World was so mismanaged and inhumane that
he came back in chains. Fernando disliked him intensely and made him
suffer after Isabel's death.

On a sidenote on Isabel, in her last will, she stipulated humane
treatment of the Native Americans.

Spain's attitude toward Catholicism was a bit unique, and, seeing
themselves in the land of crusades (and out of general pride, the
besetting sin of the Spaniard), when they felt it in their interests,
the various kings had little to no compunctions about standing up,
ignoring, or rejecting papal instructions. The dispensation allowing
cousins Isabel and Fernando to marry was forged by Fernando's father.
And let's not forget the sack of Rome by the ever-darling Charles V
(though I do not consider him Spanish, and he never even learned to
speak Spanish properly).

The ruthless quality characterizing the Catholic Kings was a direct
result of the position both Castile and Aragon were in during the 1470s.
Here's a report from a contemporary, translated by Townsend Miller in
"Castles and the Crown":

"But let a contemporary, Lucio Marineo, expand the scene: "Many cities
and towns of Spain cruelly worn out by many and most cruel thieves,
murderers, adulterers, by infinite insults and sacrilege and all kind of
delinquents . . . who feared neither God nor the king. . . . Some of
them, scorning laws both human and divine, took all justice into their
own hands. Others, given to gluttony and laziness, shamelessly violated
wives, virgins and nuns. . . . Others cruelly assaulted and robbed
tradesmen, travelers and people on their way to fairs. Others, who had
greater power and greater folly, seized lands and castles of the Crown,
and sallying thence with violence robbed the fields of their neighbors.
. . . They also took captive many people, whom their relatives were
obliged to ransom with no less money than if they had been captured by
Moors or other barbarians." (this tallies nicely with the impression
left upon Rozmital and his party).

By 1474, when Isabel snatched the crown in Segovia, Castile had
experienced a 50-year reign of political disaster by her father, Juan
II; and equally disastrous reign by her half-brother Enrique IV; the
illegal but fantastically dramatic and convincing deposition of Enrique
leading to a civil war lead by two rival kings; and an insecure
succession by either Isabel or her niece Juana, who may or may not have
been Enrique's only child. Directly after her grabbing the crown,
rebellion struck, Afonso V of Portugal married and championed niece
Juana and another battle had to decide if the Catholic Kings would ever
be heard of again. Over in Aragon, Fernando's father, also a Juan II,
had battled his son Carlos de Viana in order to champion the younger
Fernando as successor to Aragon; the Catalans and Juan were at bloody
and catastrophic odds for at least 15 years; and Juan, son of Fernando
de Antequera, younger brother of Enrique III, considered himself an
exile in Aragon and plotted with all his considerable brain to hook
Fernando up with Isabel because he felt Fernando would bring the exiled
family home at last.

From about the age of 16 (1467 or thereabouts), when her brother Alfonso
died and Isabel engineered a rocky reconciliation with Enrique IV, she
was pretty much decided on marriage with Fernando, because, early on,
she had formed plans for the rehabilitation of Castile and an alliance
with Juan II of Aragon was logical. Before that time, she wasn't much
considered -- in fact, at one point, she was almost tossed off to the
brother of Enrique IV's favorite (her friend, Beatriz de Bobadilla,
threatened to stab this man if he actually entered the room. Luckily,
he died of a fever before getting to Segovia). As she married Fernando
in 1468 cozying up to Richard would have been a political move and a
feeling ground for the new monarch.

There was, in fact, a reformation of the church in Spain, engineered by
Isabel, who felt the corruption and power of the church was standing in
the way of her master plans for her kingdom. She recruited Ximenes de
Cisneros, and the two of them effected a very effective rub-down of the
Castilian church (which, as I recall, the Pope tried to protest, and
which Isabel continued to do). This background contributed to the
resistance of Lutherism, though the other factors mentioned certainly
played their part. However, the root problem in Castile wasn't the
submission of the kingdoms to the church and to government but something
quite different: Beatriz de Bobadilla had no problem shouting defiance
at her new king, Philip the Handsome. Philip's son, Charles, legitimate
heir to Castile and Aragon, was almost run out of the kingdom. The
mayor of one of the Castilian towns refused to let Isabel through the
gates and she was reduced to negotiating the restoration of the town
flag before gaining admittance. Isabel certainly might have taken it
that ruthless measures were needed if she ever intended to succeed.

Maria
Elena@...

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> >
> > Funny, I've often wondered about that too. There are just too many
> > imponderables to be able to make any predictions based on a
different
> > dynastic succession at any given point.
> >
> > I also suspect that, however ineptly it came about, the English
> > solution to an English problem - ie more or less keeping
Catholicism
> > but not the Pope - might have been the most nearly inevitable
> > outcome, rather tnan the "normal" Lutheran route.
>
> But that *wasn't* the outcome. The Edwardian and Elizabethan
churches,
> insofar as they had any theological content at all
> were decisively Protestant in doctrine. Cramner et al were hardly
> "Catholic" in any sense, and it was they who set the theological
> direction of Anglicanism far more than Henry VIII.

I agree. But the Anglican settlement of Elizabeth was more of a
compromise. High churchers refer to themselves as Anglo-catholics,
don't they?

So much of Catholic
> doctrine rested on Papal authority alone that it's hard for me to
see
> how the theology could have long survived Henry in the absence of a
> renewed allegience to Rome.
>
> > I do get the
> > impression that there was political frustration with papal
> > interference (with which I sympathise - what WAS Pope Innocent
doing
> > excommunicating Yorkist rebels against Henry VII, for instance??),
> > but no particularly widespread enthusiasm for more radical
religious
> > change.
>
> The same might be said for Saxony or Scandanavia at the time.
>
> >
> > But it was carried out ineptly. Elizabeth did her best to patch it
> > all over, but the divisions in the country were by that time very
> > deep, not to mention the enemies made abroad and the total mess
with
> > Ireland.
>
> But the country wasn't all that divided! And Elizabeth's handling
of
> religious matters was anything but inept.

Bob, I'm sorry, there was division. We think there wasn't with
the "benefit" of hindsight. I think this view is being revised these
days, and not before time. Also I didn't say Elizabeth was inept. I
said she tried to patch up the inept handling of the Reformation by
her predecessors. I have deliberately differentiated between the
Edwardian and Elizabethan forms of Protestantism.


She was not in the slightest
> concerned with theology. She was concerned with her throne.
Elizabeth's
> attitude played a large role in determining the theological
character of
> Anglicanism to this day (an Episcopal seminarian in my clinical
training
> program described the central tenet of Anglicanism
as "justification by
> good taste :)"). It finds its identity in loyalty and obedience to
an
> ecclesiastical structure, with little if any theological "glue"
holding
> it together. That is exactly the kind of broad, national church
that
> Elizabeth set out to create, and she succeeded brilliantly. You and
I
> might have our critiques of her approach from a theological point
of
> view, but it's important to remember that theology was of no
concern to
> her whatsoever. If anything, it was a divisive factor which got in
the
> way of her uniting the vast majority of the English people in one
> ecclesiastical structure under her control.

Bob, that's just what I was saying. The damage had already been done.