Why?

[MoreCoffee]

Why do so many folk call Mary, queen of England, 'bloody' when her father, Henry VIII killed around 70,000 Catholic people from the north of England for religious reasons, and her sister Elizabeth I killed around 100,000 people over religion during her reign?

It seems a bit disproportionate considering Mary killed around 300 for religious reasons - many of whom advocated killing her.

 

[CityOfGod]

I love Bloody Marys.

 

[Tangible]

Marketing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Marketing.

Effective eh? 300 makes one bloody, 100,000 makes one "The Virgin Queen"

 

[Tangible]

History is written by the victors.

/Gallic shrug

 

[New_Wineskin]

Typical ... "other people do stuff so why should I own up to my own doings ?"

 

[MoreCoffee]

Effective eh? 300 makes one bloody, 100,000 makes one "The Virgin Queen"

Typical ... "other people do stuff so why should I own up to my own doings ?"

Too true. So why do folk keep praising Elizabeth I and putting forwnies around Mary? Seems kind of dishonest.

 

[Tangible]

Welcome to the human condition.

 

[Albion]

Too true. So why do folk keep praising Elizabeth I and putting forwnies around Mary? Seems kind of dishonest.

Elizabeth was probably England's greatest ruler--for a number of reasons. Mary did not rule long, was not much of a leader, and wasted her opportunities on trying to turn the country over to a foreign prince.

The number of people executed for heresy in England and Wales.

Monarch Dates Executed:
Henry VII 1485-1509 24
Henry VIII 1509-1547 81
Edward VI 1547-1553 2
Mary 1553-1558 280
Elizabeth 1558-1603 4

 

[MoreCoffee]

The number of people executed for heresy in England and Wales.

Monarch Dates Executed:
Henry VII 1485-1509 24
Henry VIII 1509-1547 81
Edward VI 1547-1553 2
Mary 1553-1558 280
Elizabeth 1558-1603 4

Treason covers a multitude of sins. Maybe you really believe that 70,000 were treasonous Catholics in the north; they wanted to stay Catholic despite Henry's desire to be something different. Elizabeth has assassins coming out of every nook and cranny so thick that there was scarcely any ground not covered by the varmets ... or so the history - oh so euphemistically - puts it. She managed about 100,000 dead people who were Catholic or Dissenters.

Such is life eh? The stats can be spun to suit

 

[Albion]

Treason covers a multitude of sins. Maybe you really believe that 70,000 were treasonous Catholics in the north

Those are much bigger figures than have generally been reported, but in any case, you're talking about insurrection, an attempt to overthrow the government. You word it so that it sounds as if the Crown was just rounding up Catholics like Jews in Nazi Germany or killing as many as possible merely because of their faith (which was virtually identical to Henry's own Catholic beliefs). No, that's not the case.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh please! No nazi references!

70,000 is about right. They were not killed in any insurrection. It was all done in cold calculating revenge. It was religious killing on a semi-industrial scale. All done for the sake of the King's majesty.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why do so many folk call Mary, queen of England, 'bloody' when her father, Henry VIII killed around 70,000 Catholic people from the north of England for religious reasons, and her sister Elizabeth I killed around 100,000 people over religion during her reign?

It seems a bit disproportionate considering Mary killed around 300 for religious reasons - many of whom advocated killing her.

It's a cultural thing .

 

[Albion]

Oh please! No nazi references!

I said that it was NOT like that.

70,000 is about right. They were not killed in any insurrection. It was all done in cold calculating revenge. It was religious killing on a semi-industrial scale. All done for the sake of the King's majesty.

It's not a correct figure, and it's not true that it was done purely for religious reasons. It's well known that insurrection, treason, was the issue. But if we were to get back to your basic question, no one admires Henry (no one that I have met, anyway), and the comparison between Mary and Elizabeth is a no-brainer. Mary was a weak ruler and had a brief reign. She is called "bloody" because she exceeded the other Tudors in executions. Elizabeth was probably the greatest of all England's rulers, as almost any historian would confirm. The question is like asking why Buchanan is not so often praised while Lincoln and Washington are generally lauded.

 

[Tangible]

I said that it was NOT like that.


It's not a correct figure, and it's not true that it was done purely for religious reasons. It's well known that insurrection, treason, was the issue. But if we were to get back to your basic question, no one admires Henry (no one that I have met, anyway), and the comparison between Mary and Elizabeth is a no-brainer. Mary was a weak ruler and had a brief reign. She is called "bloody" because she exceeded the other Tudors in executions. Elizabeth was probably the greatest of all England's rulers, as almost any historian would confirm. The question is like asking why Buchanan is not so often praised while Lincoln and Washington are generally lauded.

James or Pat?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I said that it was NOT like that.


It's not a correct figure, and it's not true that it was done purely for religious reasons. It's well known that insurrection, treason, was the issue.....

It was 'treason' not to accept the King as head of the Church. It was 'treason' not to agree to 'the divorce'. Treason is such a flexible word when one wants to kill people for not doing the religion thing that the king demands.

 

[Albion]

It was 'treason' not to accept the King as head of the Church. It was 'treason' not to agree to 'the divorce'. Treason is such a flexible word when one wants to kill people for not doing the religion thing that the king demands.

I guess you will believe what you want to believe, but there is no doubt but that these conspiracies and rebellions were real. They forced the Queen's hand.

 

[Albion]

James or Pat?

Yeh, I was thinking of James. Really. I would have gone with my first thought--Polk--but he is well-thought of in some quarters although little remembered today, so I decided on someone even less often praised.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Too true. So why do folk keep praising Elizabeth I and putting forwnies around Mary? Seems kind of dishonest.

Yes - Just as in Catholic school when the instructors discuss Mary as a defender of the faith but Elizabeth as a demon .

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It was 'treason' not to accept the King as head of the Church. It was 'treason' not to agree to 'the divorce'. Treason is such a flexible word when one wants to kill people for not doing the religion thing that the king demands.

MoreCoffee; I tend to agree with your view. The Christian Martyrs in the first few centuries AD could be called traitors from Rome's POV.

Christians in Pakistan could be called "traitors" from the POV of the Pakistani Government too.

When Church and State are separated, treason can cover a lot of sins.