Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Who’s the one erecting straw men now? If they produce another remake of The Wickerman you should apply as director.
Cranmer’s hypocrisy:
Google: ” Active Concealment: Cranmer had to hide his marriage to Margaret Osiander, which occurred around 1532, as clerical celibacy was enforced for much of Henry’s reign.
Protestant Reputation: By 1536, Cranmer was already identified as the leader of the reformist faction, and by 1538, he had abandoned the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Political Compromise: Despite his personal beliefs, he complied with the conservative Act of Six Articles in 1539, which reinforced Catholic doctrine, and even participated in the persecution of those with more radical views than his own.
Controlled Reform: He was forced to accept the “King’s Book” (1543), which largely restored Catholicism, but was allowed by Henry to compose an English Litany in 1544, preparing the ground for future Protestant changes.
Final Actions: Upon Henry’s death in January 1547, Cranmer was finally free to openly implement the Protestant changes he had prepared. “The permanent standing army was brought in by James II, so yes, it was already there by 1688. The New Model was Cromwell’s own raised force and did not survive him.
I said it’s a waste of time because you simply repeat things without taking any cognisance of my points.
Whether the oppressed are patriotic or not, have the franchise or are ruled autocratically, a nation-state is not their property nor their tool, but is the property and tool of the ruling class.
Of course the modern nation-state today has the ultimate in national brainwashing power to instil “nationhood” among its proletariat, but the nation-state would exist even if coercion were necessary.
Authoritarian countries today are no less nation-states than “democratic” ones are. So are states run by clergy (such as Iran), where the patriotism is inseparable from religious loyalty.So we’ll end the thread then. It’s a waste of time.
By your logic, England wasn’t a nation-state either.
Didn’t George III use thousands of Hanoverian and Hessian troops against the American rebels?
There was no standing army in England until James II. Parliamentarian regiments in the Civil War, like Royalist ones, were privately raised by regional landowners. It was a minority conflict and Puritans were a minority of the English population.
Yes. But even in Britain before the First World War, the red coat was something to avoid, which is why recruiting sergeants had to trick working men by dropping the “King’s (or Queen’s) Shilling” into their mugs of beer when they weren’t looking, or lead press gangs into ale houses, brothels and streets to cosh them and drag them away into the army or navy.
If Britain was still dubious about patriotism in the 19th century, but nonetheless an industrialised nation-state, it’s no surprise it was still an infant in the 15th century in Spain and Portugal. But royal force and violence were real and ruthless, and strongly centralised. The monarchs were no longer the pawns of feudal lords and global markets and colonies were in play, if not in our modern sense.
So what are you trying to say, that these were not nation-states, but England was?Lastly, although the 1688 settlement had consolidated the bourgeois English state, and the 1707 Union had created Great Britain, half of the island, remember was still the roaming land of semi-feudal/tribal Gaelic clans until 1746.
https://share.google/gkQczj5K5TMGhHWMP (How could a fragmented feudal country have conquered this much and become the world’s global power – whilst England was dependent on pirating from it?)
The Basques and Catalans have never thought of themselves as Spanish; nor have the Bretons and Occitans thought of themselves as French, yet both are nation-states (Spain and France). There was one army under one royal livery and an empire whose governors were answerable to one royal authority. All wealth from conquest went to the Crown, in Spain, France and England. Each state appointed its own bishops. Whatever an individual or community believed, the reality was only one central allegiance. A crime against the state was a crime against its Church too and was punished by the state or church authorities answerable to the state and not to any foreign power, not even the pope.
A feudal secular authority could have never established global power, and none did, even if remnants of feudal society still lingered in the home nation. (As they did in England too).The Reformation was obviously part of a changing society, with Calvinism especially appealing to sections of the bourgeoisie (although Hungarian feudal lords also embraced it), but so was the “Counter”- Reformation; indeed the latter also expressed the needs of the emerging capitalist society and of the rising nation-states, enabling France and Spain, the two foremost Catholic powers, to achieve ecclesiastic, national, autonomy from Rome.
The rise of nation-states breaking up medieval Christendom produced the Humanists, such as More and Erasmus. Although More was made a saint in 1935, his books were for a long time banned in Spain!
Other great series and books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones%27_Barbarians
Except Terry is mistaken in assuming the Catholic Church of the early Middle Age to be the same as the “Roman Catholic” Church. This did not exist as a separate entity until 1054.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Ages:_An_Age_of_Light
