Why?

[Albion]

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

That's true. However, the absurd part of this debate is that the writer of the OP didn't really want an answer to the question posed. Rather, he wanted an argument with Anglicanism. And then, he continually comes back to Henry, even when replying to an answer about Elizabeth. Even more bizarre, he apparently thinks that denigrating Henry is the way to deflate Anglicans (most Catholics make this mistake), when Anglicans have no admiration for Henry and don't buy into the Roman Catholic talking point that he founded a new church and/or was a Protestant.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In England ....

Catholicism survived mostly in secret congregations centred on the country houses of Catholic peers and gentry. Priests had to be trained and ordained abroad, at Douai, in Rome and elsewhere, and on returning to England they were liable to imprisonment. From about 1580 to 1680 they also risked execution, as did those who harboured them. Of those who died in this way, or earlier for refusing to swear that Henry VIII was Head of the Church, forty-two now have the title of Saint and another 242 that of Blessed. Government policy fluctuated from time to time, so that most of the executions were between 1580 and 1610, with another batch at the time of the Civil War and Commonwealth (1642-60) and a third at the time of the Oates Plot (1678-81). Catholics were also liable to fines for not attending Protestant services (‘recusancy’), but with the collusion of conforming cousins and brothers-in-law most of them managed to evade either conviction or payment.

Catholic houses had secret chapels and rooms for the priests on the top floor and hiding-places (‘priest-holes’) where priests could be hidden during searches. The best-known builder of priest-holes was (Saint) Nicholas Owen, who died in the Tower under torture in 1606. The best surviving series of them is at Harvington Hall, near Kidderminster in Worcestershire; others can be seen at, among other houses, Ufton Court, near Reading; Scotney Old Castle in Kent; Oxburgh Hall in Norfolk; Thurnham Hall near Lancaster; Baddesley Clinton and Coughton Court in Warwickshire; and Boscobel House and Moseley Old Hall near Wolverhampton. The hides at the last two were also used by King Charles II during his escape after the Battle of Worcester in 1651 and so are unusually well documented.

 

[Fireinfolding]

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.

True, sorta like Rahab might have been considered a traitor to her own country (in concealing the meassengers/ spies) Joshua sent. These being the messengers of God. Verses a traitor in respects to betraying the Lord himself (as shown in Judas). Rahab lied (concealing the messengers of Joshua) Judas (looking for opportunity to betray Christ) told where he could be found. Even as Obadiah (the governor of Ahab's house) in fear of the Lord took measures to hide the prophets of the Lord when they were being slain. So to one you can be shown as a traitor (to either the Lord or ones own country). Brother betraying a brother to his death is shown. Paul himself was lowered through a window in a basket to escape the authorities also. Doesnt say who was risking their necks for him there but pretty cool how that is shown

 

[Rhamiel]

History is written by the victors.

/Gallic shrug

quoted for truth

 

[Rhamiel]

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.

wait?
which queen are we talking about now?
you do understand that your statement could be used for defenders of either Mary or Elizabeth.

91 years after the death of Queen Mary we have a Puritan zealot killing a king

I am not really defending Queen Mary, all those early modern monarchs have hands caked in blood.

I am kind of tired of all this hoopla over Queen Elizabeth, really it is more of a cult of personality, really good PR then anything else

 

[Albion]

I am kind of tired of all this hoopla over Queen Elizabeth, really it is more of a cult of personality, really good PR then anything else

I can appreciate that. There's been a lot of attention paid to her in recent years. I'm not absolutely sure what accounts for that. However, she really did much to strengthen the nation and she is, as I said, generally considered by historians to have been England's greatest monarch. If not that, she's pretty close and there's no consensus on another contender.

And all of this is what it is if we take the Catholic vs. Protestant rivalry (that we here engage in) out of the equation. We could, of course, go more into detail about her accomplishments, but just don't think of her as undeserving of the attention she's received.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This thread isn't 'Catholic Vs Protestant rivalry'. The Original Post is about an oddity in history; specifically the naming of Mary as 'bloody' evidently because she had 300 or so Protestants killed when her father and her half sister killed thousands of Catholics. The record would point more to 'bloody Henry' and 'bloody Elizabeth' than 'bloody Mary'.

But is was pointed out, 'the victors write history', and 'marketing' sells a position.

 

[Rhamiel]

From the 1570s, the government sought to manipulate the image of the queen as an object of devotion and veneration. Sir Roy Strong writes: "The cult of Gloriana was skilfully created to buttress public order and, even more, deliberately to replace the pre-Reformation externals of religion, the cult of the Virgin and saints with their attendant images, processions, ceremonies and secular rejoicing.

from Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This thread isn't 'Catholic Vs Protestant rivalry'. The Original Post is about an oddity in history; specifically the naming of Mary as 'bloody' evidently because she had 300 or so Protestants killed when her father and her half sister killed thousands of Catholics. The record would point more to 'bloody Henry' and 'bloody Elizabeth' than 'bloody Mary'.

But is was pointed out, 'the victors write history', and 'marketing' sells a position.

Good marketing, timing and results.

When Elizabeth took the throne, England was a mess; they were almost broke, everyone wanted to invade them. By the end of her reign, England was well on the way to becoming "the" world power. If I were English, I'd overlook her shortcomings and hold up her (England's) achievements during her reign too.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good marketing, timing and results.

When Elizabeth took the throne, England was a mess; they were almost broke, everyone wanted to invade them. By the end of her reign, England was well on the way to becoming "the" world power. If I were English, I'd overlook her shortcomings and hold up her (England's) achievements during her reign too.

That sounds like the voice of expedience out-shouting the voice of conscience. But, as you've said more than once, 'marketing' plays a role in naming Elizabeth 'gloriana' and Mary 'bloody'.

 

[Albion]

Good marketing, timing and results.

When Elizabeth took the throne, England was a mess; they were almost broke, everyone wanted to invade them. By the end of her reign, England was well on the way to becoming "the" world power. If I were English, I'd overlook her shortcomings and hold up her (England's) achievements during her reign too.

But that makes sense, don't you see? And it shows an understanding of history. It's much more satisfying to some people to put all that aside and think that nothing formed the reputation of either ruler except their religion.

 

[PaladinValer]

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.

I see where the problem lies: skewed numbers and bad history

You say Henry VIII killed 70,000 Catholics (mind you, Anglicans are Catholic), yet that doesn't say why they were. A person condemned to death for treason before we formally kicked the pope out of our affairs would also be included in that figure...which means that you have skewed to show bias as per your opening statement; compare your Henry VIII to your Mary in how you qualify your numbers ("Catholics" to "religious reasons")

Furthermore, the numbers are grossly inflated, I might add, making them historically false:

Regarding Henry (and his bodycount) « The BS Historian
Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

And 100,000 persons by Elizabeth I? Please...

Remember folks; be sure to be reasonable. If the population of England is 27,000,000 in 1550 and the King or Queen is murdering 72,000 or 100,000, how much percentage of the population is that? Which includes women, the aged, and children? Seriously...historical accuracy is all I ask.

 

[WisdomTree]

wait?
which queen are we talking about now?
you do understand that your statement could be used for defenders of either Mary or Elizabeth.

91 years after the death of Queen Mary we have a Puritan zealot killing a king

I am not really defending Queen Mary, all those early modern monarchs have hands caked in blood.

I am kind of tired of all this hoopla over Queen Elizabeth, really it is more of a cult of personality, really good PR then anything else

The cake is a lie!

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

Remember folks; be sure to be reasonable. If the population of England is 27,000,000 in 1550 and the King or Queen is murdering 72,000 or 100,000, how much percentage of the population is that? Which includes women, the aged, and children? ...

It'd be 100*(100,000/27,000,000) = 0.37%, mind you, Elizabeth reigned for a long time; 1558 to 1603 that's 45 years isn't it? So, the annual death rate would be (on a naive average) 2,222 per year and that'd be 0.008% ... anyway, that is not too important.