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

[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.