![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, I'm not usually one for memes, but this one caught my eye:
1. Grab the nearest book with a blue cover.
2. Open the book to page 86.
3. Find the first full paragraph.
4. Post the text in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don't search around and look for the coolest book you can find, just the closest blue book.
Page 86 is actually a map, so I'll post the first paragraph of page 87.
For three decades the government veered about. Henry died in 1547 and was succeeded by his 10-year-old son, Edward VI, under whom the Protestant party came to the fore. But Edward died in 1553 and was succeeded by his much older half-sister, Mary, the daughter of Catherine of Aragon and a devout Roman Catholic whose whole life had been embittered by the break with Rome. Mary tried to re-Catholicize England, but she actually made Catholicism more unpopular with the English. In 1554 she married Philip of Spain, who became king of England, though only nominally. The English did not like Philip, nor the Spanish, nor the intense Spanish Catholicism that Philip represented. Under Mary, moreover, some three hundred persons were burned at the stake, as heretics, in public mass executions. It was the first (and last) time that such a thing had happened in England, and it set up a wave of horror. In any event, Mary did not live long. She was succeeded in 1558 by Henry's younger daughter, Elizabeth, the chid of Anne Boleyn. Whatever Elizabeth's real views in religion might be (she concealed them successfully and was rumored to have none), she could not be a Roman Catholic. For Catholics she was illegitimate and so unable to be queen.
Whooo, baby! Exciting bedtime reading is in the HOUSE!
1. Grab the nearest book with a blue cover.
2. Open the book to page 86.
3. Find the first full paragraph.
4. Post the text in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don't search around and look for the coolest book you can find, just the closest blue book.
Page 86 is actually a map, so I'll post the first paragraph of page 87.
For three decades the government veered about. Henry died in 1547 and was succeeded by his 10-year-old son, Edward VI, under whom the Protestant party came to the fore. But Edward died in 1553 and was succeeded by his much older half-sister, Mary, the daughter of Catherine of Aragon and a devout Roman Catholic whose whole life had been embittered by the break with Rome. Mary tried to re-Catholicize England, but she actually made Catholicism more unpopular with the English. In 1554 she married Philip of Spain, who became king of England, though only nominally. The English did not like Philip, nor the Spanish, nor the intense Spanish Catholicism that Philip represented. Under Mary, moreover, some three hundred persons were burned at the stake, as heretics, in public mass executions. It was the first (and last) time that such a thing had happened in England, and it set up a wave of horror. In any event, Mary did not live long. She was succeeded in 1558 by Henry's younger daughter, Elizabeth, the chid of Anne Boleyn. Whatever Elizabeth's real views in religion might be (she concealed them successfully and was rumored to have none), she could not be a Roman Catholic. For Catholics she was illegitimate and so unable to be queen.
Whooo, baby! Exciting bedtime reading is in the HOUSE!
(no subject)
At Mary's death, Catholicism was not wildly unpopular with the English, who of course had been Catholic for centuries. Mary, however, succeeded in making the novel equation of Catholicism with foreign influence in England, because of a series of poor policy decisions and of course her disastrous marriage. Like most people who are actually decent, kind, and generous, she was a terrible ruler with next to no diplomatic or tactical skills, and thus a disaster on the throne.
As for her sister, there's no denying her effectiveness as a ruler, and it's hard not to at least admire the Bloody Old Bitch, as the Catholics called her. It is as difficult to thoroughly dislike her as it is to thoroughly like her, I find -- much as her contemporaries found, I think.
(no subject)
All of which, I think, does speak to the point that he seems to be making in the section (that's the problem with this meme, I suppose; it's out of context): that while execution methods continued to be barbaric throughout much of English history, there was only one period in that history which assigned such penalties specifically to heresy – if only because after Elizabeth, the church had been placed so firmly under the state in importance, that the crime of treason far surpassed heresy in severity.
Actually, it always seemed to me that Elizabeth succeeded dramatically as a ruler partially because of her Machiavellian (in the best sense) pragmatism regarding religion. She knew she couldn't be Catholic, and instead she was largely secular. When she slaughtered religious prisoners – and she did – it was, as I understand it, because they were political entities, traitors to the fused corpus of the Anglican church, the English state, and the English ruler, who had the capability to threaten her reign. She didn't care what people did in their private lives, just whether they were going to betray her to Spain. Like her father, she knew that she couldn't be as strong a monarch if she allowed Rome to control her.
Philip is the one who really weirds me out. What a freak. Did you know he holed himself up in the Escorial with eight (occupied) coffins? There's no call for that kind of behavior.
On a related note, I visited Westminster Abbey on a family trip to England in April, and was amused to note that they've buried Mary and Elizabeth side by side, with a caption which amounts to "We are tired of fighting. Deal with it. You're dead, and we're moving on."
(Also I am almost done with your book! It is EVEN MORE FABULOUS than expected. I have, like, three page of euphoric notes on my laptop, so expect dribbling feedback to arrive fairly soon.)
(no subject)
I think Elizabeth gets let off the hook for religious murders precisely because she turned heresy executions into treason executions. I still take exception to her philosophy being "believe what you want, just don't betray me to Spain," though. Hundreds of Catholics and others who never dreamed of betraying their Queen, from Campion on down, went to Tyburn protesting their loyalty. Just being found with an Agnus Dei around your neck was taken as evidence that you were in collusion with foreign powers desiring the overthrow of your government, and could earn you a spot in the little-ease. Executions for heresy in fact increased under Elizabeth, just under another name. By turning a heresy excution into a treason execution, she was able to muster popular support for a religious program that enjoyed only spotty support initially. Historians like Palmer rejoice to overlook the fact that it was in actuality their cherished Protestantism that brought us the full and final equation of church and state.
And take your time with the book -- no rush. I can't begin to think about revisions for another few weeks at any rate, so I'm simply trying not to think about it.
(no subject)
The "treason" thing is fair, as well. She wasn't too exacting about who she called a traitor and who she called a heretic, and that gets glossed over.
But the truth is, I tend to be personally attracted to rulers (especially women rulers) who were really good at what they did, and had few moral compunctions when it came to politics. (Not sure what that says about me, actually.) It was just such a tough world for them, and they were so freakin' effective. (Bonus points for popping out 10-20 children in between wars, too; that's right, Maria Therese, I'm talking to you.) When it comes to world history, I'll take a chick who knows where her towel is over a paragon anyday. Queen Victoria! Catherine the Great! These are my girls!
Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm a bad person, and you're probably right. :D
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)