Guy Fawkes Night.

[apolla]

I think I said most of what I feel last year, but as I had like, one friend at the time on LJ, perhaps it bears repeating.

Remember, Remember The Fifth of November

Agree with me or disagree as you will. I don't mind celebrating that most of Whitehall wasn't destroyed, but the other side of the coin is basically anti-Catholic rhetoric which I cannot personally accept. Were it just fireworks and the remnants of the earlier bonfire night, perhaps I'd feel better. But that fucking tune, that effigy thrown on the fire... I hate it. I know that not everybody has a guy, not everybody cares, but I do care.

Returning to your regularly scheduled programming tomorrow.

Comments

[photosinensis.livejournal.com]

You made a few very valid points about British history in that post. They're still quite true. Your parting shot, though, doesn't just apply to the Britons. I, as a Methodist, would probably be Catholic myself, as the Methodist church was originally a group of people who just wanted to simplify the Anglican church. Granted, the movement still could have happened, but I would imagine that it would have developed quite differently.

But Henry VIII was an asshole. I don't remember if his first wife was unable to bear children anymore or not, but he could have given himself a divorce and called it good. He didn't have to involve the church...he could have taken a concubine as many royals in every region have done throughout history.

[elseinane.livejournal.com]

1. Yes, Catherine of Aragon was to old to have anymore children.
2. Henry was obsessed with male heir - not just an heir (as he did have Mary I running about thanks to Catherine). Then the child he didn't want (Elizabeth) was arguably the greatest royal leader in British history (so take that Henry, you chauvinist asshole you)
3. The Protestant reformation was well on its way before Henry got an itch in his pants (literally and figuratively now that I think about it). So I agree Clare is a bit off on her reasoning there. However, with Britain still having a state religion - there would most likely be more Catholics than currently exist at this point in time.
4. Elise is showing the level of her nerdy-ness and shall shut up now.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

*agrees with Elise*

My point was meant to be an over-generalisation. I do believe it- to a certain extent- because of the huge power the monarchy had over we English at the time. But you're right about the reformation itself. I think it would've made it to these shores and had a certain influence, maybe lots, but perhaps we would still be essentially Catholic had Henry not split with Rome himself and established the Church of England. Really, we don't know, I'm theorising and I'm likely wrong. Was just making a joke of sorts to get people to think.

*hugs*

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Well, aside from the fact I was hugely over-generalising in order to construct a joke:

Henry greatly desired a male heir. Not simply a male child, but one who would be a legitimate heir to the throne of England.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<brief,>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Well, aside from the fact I was hugely over-generalising in order to construct a joke:

Henry greatly desired a male heir. Not simply a male child, but one who would be a legitimate heir to the throne of England. <brief, condensed history> George IV had a very similar problem when it turned out he <i>had</i> male children but not one of them was a legitimate heir. When his legitimate daughter Princess Charlotte died in childbirth, there was a rush by all of George's near-elderly brothers to marry and get themselves some legitimate heirs. Not many were very successful so once George died the throne went briefly to William IV and once he died the closest was his niece, a young girl called Victoria.</history.

Henry could've also given himself a divorce, but you're forgetting the power that Rome had. You think it's powerful today? Nothing, nothing compared to then. Even if the British government had recognised a second marriage as legal, nobody else would've done because the church would tell them to. Therefore any heirs would be considered illegitimate, which would've caused problems for them in Europe when they came to the throne. Henry did need to involve the church, they would've involved themselves anyway and they either needed to agree with him and let him get his way or the split needed to happen.

And don't think for a minute that the king didn't hold huge sway over the feelings/opinion/lives of the people at that time. Perhaps Britain would've become protestant in the wake of the reformation in Europe anyway, maybe not. What I think is that it happened a lot quicker and a lot more comprehensively across the country because of him. After all, the reformation in Europe didn't get to everyone.