Discussion: thomas more watching a heretic burn

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

1 2 3 | Next

CarolineZ	thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 1:30 PM EDT I don't think this is historically accurate. I think Thomas More was guilty of rejoicing in print over a certain person who was burned, but I don't think he was instrumental in actually having anybody burned or attending a burning. Post reply Do you find this valuable? Keyword tags: More/Heretics
Bluevanillalady	1. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 2:11 PM EDT "I don't think this is historically accurate. I think Thomas More was guilty of rejoicing in print over a certain person who was burned, but I don't think he was instrumental in actually having anybody burned or attending a burning." I was under the impression that he was fully involved in the torture of heretics...Wasn't there rumor that he actually had torture equiptment in his own home didn't he? I found this in wikipedia on the article about him. It does say that this "rumor" has been challenged though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More "Rumors circulated during and after More's lifetime concerning his treatment of "heretics"; John Foxe (who "placed Protestant sufferings against the background of ... the Antichrist")[10] in his Book of Martyrs claimed that More had often used violence or torture while interrogating him. On the one hand, Michael Farris[who?] claims that in April 1529 a "heretic", John Tewkesbury, was taken by More to his house in Chelsea and so badly tortured on the rack that he was almost unable to walk. Tewkesbury was subsequently burned at the stake" Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
beardedlady	2. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 3:17 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 18 2009, 3:18 PM EDT Yes, he retained heretics at his house in Chelsea. I am not sure how many he tortured but the Tewkesbury bit is true. I know everyone loves More on this board, but I have never seen him as a man to admire. For one, he was a flagellant which I consider pretty good evidence that he was a disturbed man. John Guy has a new book out on the relationship between him and his daughter. Guy tends not to sugar coat events so I think his book will set the record straight. Should be a good read. Anyone read it yet? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	3. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 3:54 PM EDT I'm not a lover of More either, i like him, obviously he was no saint back then, as he is celebrated now as one, i never understood why? Him and Cromwell were similar men, just different beliefs once again, yet Cromwell is treated as a villain, and More a hero? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeroineAddict	4. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:01 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 18 2009, 4:02 PM EDT I, too, have never really understood the admiration of More. I know he is a Catholic saint, and depending on which side of the fence one sits, one does tend to see people and events radically differently, but since I started reading further into Tudor history and More himself, I've found less and less to respect or like in him. I used to have the uninformed bias that because he educated his daughters, he must have been a jolly good chap, but he certainly believed women were extremely inferior to men, and his track record with the treatment of so-called 'heretics' is horrendous. The reports on his use of torture are quite chilling. I don't know, maybe 'A Man For All Seasons' is partially to blame... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Bluevanillalady	5. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:11 PM EDT The worst in the show is when he is torturing Smeaton on the rack and his arms and legs give way. I couldn't even imagine the pain that someone would have endured through that, it would have been incredible. I guess if you were lucky you would have just passed out. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	6. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:17 PM EDT "The worst in the show is when he is torturing Smeaton on the rack and his arms and legs give way. I couldn't even imagine the pain that someone would have endured through that, it would have been incredible. I guess if you were lucky you would have just passed out." Is it any wonder the poor man admitted to having an affair with Anne, just to make it all stop!!! If More tortured heretics the same way Cromwell had tortured Smeaton, then why is it he is viewed as such a spectacular man, i'm Catholic, i don't really see it! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Boudica	7. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:19 PM EDT "I don't think this is historically accurate. I think Thomas More was guilty of rejoicing in print over a certain person who was burned, but I don't think he was instrumental in actually having anybody burned or attending a burning." I don't think it was an historically accurate depiction either, because while More certainly supported policies to burn heretics and their literature (including Bibles), like you said, he never attended these executions. Most of the sources that say otherwise are from the Protestant martyrologist John Foxe who is a very biased source against More. Most of what Foxe wrote about More was exaggerated or unsubstantiated, like the stories that More kept and tortured heretics in his family home. Personally, I'm not a fan of More but I think some of the stories about him need to be sorted out fact from fiction in regards to his dealings with Reformists. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
beardedlady	8. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:27 PM EDT that's interesting. I didn't know Foxe was the source of the Tewkesbury tale. Well, I am going to try to reserve judgement until I read Guy's book. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Anne'sCurls	9. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 4:30 PM EDT The only thing I knew about Thomas More before this show was that he wrote Utopia, and that was because of the movie Ever After. I do recall hearing somewhere that he was a saint for the Catholics but I never paid that much attention to it. This show has really made me dislike him, I have a low tolerance for anybody who punishes others because they dont believe the same way they do. Even when he was not burning the heretic but bad mouthing the reformation in general I wanted to back hand him. He's just a bigot. Post reply 3 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Conyle	10. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 5:23 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 18 2009, 7:50 PM EDT " I have a low tolerance for anybody who punishes others because they dont believe the same way they do. Even when he was not burning the heretic but bad mouthing the reformation in general I wanted to back hand him. He's just a bigot." Well said. that's why when they had the game of posting one word for More, all I could come up with was "brutal". I was going to follow with "intolerant", but didn't want to piss everyone off who was enjoying posting positive comments. Love actor though. Brilliant. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Bluevanillalady	11. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 5:47 PM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 18 2009, 5:49 PM EDT Is it that out there though that he would have been more involved in these things? I don't know all the facts but from what I have read about the Tudor times it doesn't seem like it would be inconcievable (spelling?) that he would have at the least attended some of these executions especially if he was doing it in the "name of god" and had at the least ordered them or some sort of torture. I would think this would be under some thinking to be a perfect venue to preach and show off the power he had with the king, church and the people in general. Basically it would have been excellent publicity for his cause at the time depending on which side of the rack you were on I suppose. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	12. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 18 2009, 9:07 PM EDT "The only thing I knew about Thomas More before this show was that he wrote Utopia, and that was because of the movie Ever After. I do recall hearing somewhere that he was a saint for the Catholics but I never paid that much attention to it. This show has really made me dislike him, I have a low tolerance for anybody who punishes others because they dont believe the same way they do. Even when he was not burning the heretic but bad mouthing the reformation in general I wanted to back hand him. He's just a bigot." Most people were bigots back then, Edward burned the Catholics for their beliefs, Mary burned Protestants for their beliefs, Henry just beheaded people if they didn't agree with him. As a Catholic, Thomas More isn't one of the most highlighted saints really, the only reason i know of him is because of, like you said, Utopia, and that's all! Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Ebusitanus	13. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 2:27 AM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 19 2009, 2:29 AM EDT Having John Foxe define our view in regards to any catholic subject back then is doing history a bad favor. John Foxe it was who also made up the term "Bloody Mary". The man died for his beliefs which is to behold. Post reply 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
scooter&buster	14. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 4:35 AM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 19 2009, 4:40 AM EDT "Having John Foxe define our view in regards to any catholic subject back then is doing history a bad favor. John Foxe it was who also made up the term "Bloody Mary". The man died for his beliefs which is to behold." Yes, and he killed others for their beliefs. It doesn't matter if he watched a Protestant burn or not. It matters that he supported it and ordered at least 6 burnings. As for sources being biased, weren't all the contemporary sources rather biased back then? Aren't they still? History is the perfect tool to put forward beliefs and agendas. Still, somewhere in there are bits of the truth. I have a problem with More because he is seen as this perfect saint, and he's just not...no matter how you look at it. Yet Cromwell is seen as this horrid monster, when really, Henry was the monster. Just my opinion :) Post reply 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Ebusitanus	15. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 4:42 AM EDT Cromwells capacity of being a monster has little to do with what henry was himself. For all you can lay on More´s feet he is not remotely close of being in the same league than Cromwell and Henry. These two were pure pragmatic machiavelian examples of their time while More´s doings and undoings were based on his faith and beliefs. Post reply 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
scooter&buster	16. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 7:12 AM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 19 2009, 7:38 AM EDT "Cromwells capacity of being a monster has little to do with what henry was himself. For all you can lay on More´s feet he is not remotely close of being in the same league than Cromwell and Henry. These two were pure pragmatic machiavelian examples of their time while More´s doings and undoings were based on his faith and beliefs." I am only stating that, IMO, More is not someone to be put on a pedestal of worship and admiration. Saints don't have people burned at the stake. And, the whole idea of saints is odd to me anyway. But, then I'm not Catholic. All I'm saying is he was a man, better than some yet worst than some...as are we all. As for Cromwell, despite all the things people would like to blame him for (even historians can't agree with the extent of his culpability in things like Anne's fall and More's death...or that he was even the true architect (sp?) of The Reformation) in the long run good came out of the changes he helped bring about in England. He was a significant force in the changing of world history. And, if you're a religious person, I would submit that what ever Henry and Cromwell did...it was God's Will. If you're not a religious person, I would submit that breaking England from Rome and an oppressive corrupt church surely could not be a bad thing in the long run. It made England more powerful. People became more educated, and by the time Elizabeth I came to the throne and embraced Protestantism, there came more tolerance for both Faiths. I don't see Cromwell as a Machiavellian at all. I see him as a servant of a volatile king. I think he gets blamed for more than his share to deflect blame from Henry. And, Cromwell had his beliefs too. He was against superstition and keeping the common folk in the dark concerning the Word of God...hence the Bible in English. He believed in centralized government and the power of parlament. And, unfortunately, he believed in his king. Post reply 3 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
scooter&buster	17. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 7:33 AM EDT It's not so much that I agree with Cromwell. I am a Protestant, so that much I relate to. But, I do not agree with all of his actions. I do think he did some terrible things. I just don't think he was the one ultimately responsible for those things. Most, if not all, should be laid at Henry's feet. Cromwell could have said no and defied the king...and, like More, died for what he believed in. But, obviously, Cromwell agreed with the King in most matters. But, it was still the king's decision. Even if Cromwell had disagreed, and said, "No. I can't do that"...and was sent to the block for it...would that have made any difference? Yes, history would have said "How brave. To die for your beliefs and fight a tyrant" But, the tyrant would still win. It's best to stay alive and fight another day. Just as More embraced his death, literally running toward martyrdom, it changed nothing. Accomplished nothing. Oh, but yes, he was sainted. His death has inspired many, true. It has inspired a play and a oscar winning film. But, "A Man for All Seasons" is NOT the real Thomas More...nor is the Cromwell in that film/play the REAL Cromwell. All I am really saying is, Thomas More is a long way from a saint...as is Cromwell a long way from a devil. Even Henry, given his vulnerable position (no male heir in a rather new dynasty) and the times he lived in can be seen in a slightly more understanding light. Post reply 4 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Ebusitanus	18. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 7:39 AM EDT I find it odd that you would find exception in More and at the same time find virtue or lack of bad faith in Cromwell at the same time. Your personal opinion in regards of how good his reformations were for England is that, modern hinsight. For the people of that time having to swear alligeance and having to break with their milenia old relation to rome was in many cases very dramatic and one that brought quite some death and suffering along. The Catholic world later on also "counter-reformed" curbing many of the old vices out, so it was not simply reformation vs decadent corrupt catholicism. Post reply 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
HeroineAddict	19. RE: thomas more watching a heretic burn Mar 19 2009, 7:46 AM EDT \| Post edited: Mar 19 2009, 12:49 PM EDT "I find it odd that you would find exception in More and at the same time find virtue or lack of bad faith in Cromwell at the same time. Your personal opinion in regards of how good his reformations were for England is that, modern hinsight. For the people of that time having to swear alligeance and having to break with their milenia old relation to rome was in many cases very dramatic and one that brought quite some death and suffering along. The Catholic world later on also "counter-reformed" curbing many of the old vices out, so it was not simply reformation vs decadent corrupt catholicism." Yes, but the Catholic church at the time was enormously corrupt, and I think the very fact that Scotland had its own independent Reformation years later indicates that something like this was very much overdue. I don't think it's modern hindsight; I think it's acknowledging that the Reformation at the time was vital for the necessary furthering and expansion of the modern world, and the old, reductive views and beliefs were holding that progression back. As for Cromwell and More, of course it's a personal opinion and not 'odd' whether one identifies with one man's actions or the other. Religion offers a very specific angle, but in my very humble opinion Cromwell was a force for overall good, if one cuts emotions out of the picture. He wasn't a Machievellian schemer who plotted solely for his own ends, but a man of genuine reforming zeal whose formative years had impressed experiences on him that drove him to want to stamp out the dictatorial hand of an oppressive religion. He, like More, made some very bad choices through that zeal, but ultimately he was no guiltier of cruelty or wickedness than anyone who felt strongly about something. Post reply 5 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?

1 2 3 | Next

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home