Tuesday, August 23, 2011

John Redwood: Anne Boleyn was 'the first Eurosceptic'

There are very few MPs these days with a grasp of history, and even fewer with any appreciation of how the past both shapes and informs the present, especially as it relates to the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

John Redwood is one of the few, and he has written an excellent account of Anne Boleyn as 'the first Eurosceptic'. This he gleaned from a visit to the Globe Theatre to see a new play. Lest he should be forced at some point to withdraw it, the salient parts are reproduced here:
The author, Howard Brenton, portrays Anne as a powerful politician in the Protestant cause. She sells the Protestant religion to a King advised by a Cardinal by appealing to Henry’s own sense of importance, self interest and need to settle his own divorce, as well as using her feminine charms over him. She comes across as an early Eurosceptic, wishing England to settle its own affairs at home without recourse to Rome. She dislikes the intervention of Roman authority between a person and their God, and seeks the issue of the Bible in English to all. She sees the advantage of the dissolution of the monasteries.

The play includes an important scene where Thomas Cromwell, by now the King’s trusted adviser, is busily drafting the famous and seminal Statute of Appeals. (24 Henry viii c12 "An Act that the appeals in such cases as have been used to be pursued to the see of Rome shall not be from henceforth had nor used but within this realm”).

They cited historical precedent for claiming imperial power to the government of England.
"Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and hath been so accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king…”
They claim that the power of self government within these islands is complete
“he (the king) being also institute and furnished …with plenary, whole and entire power, preeminence,authority, prerogative and jurisdiction to yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk…in all causes, matters, debates and contentious happening to occur…”
The power to appeal to Rome had to be removed owing to
“great inquietation, vexation, trouble, costs and charges of the King’s Highness and many of his subjects….but also to the great delay and let to the true and speedy determination of the said causes…”
and for the difficulty in cross examining witnesses in so far away a place. They asserted that remote justice was delayed justice, wrong justice or no justice at all.

This revolutionary piece of legislation is presented as a restatement of old law and is partially founded on Richard II’s praemunire provisions (legal butresses against foreign jurisdictions). The Crown approached the break with Rome in a crab like way, aware of the dangers of retaliation from the continent by the Catholic powers as well as by the Pope. Nonetheless, it was radical to state that in future the Crown was the fount of all justice and legal settlement. The Church in England was the King’s to shape and control.

The Crown used its influence in Parliament to give full Parliamentary backing to this constitutional revolution. It proved useful in later years when Parliament wished to transfer powers from the Crown to itself. It is only in the last thirty years that England - now with the rest of the UK – has ceased to be a sovereign empire governed by itself, as it has surrendered more and more of its power to the Brussels government.

What Parliament can give away, it can reassert. It was a pleasure to be reminded of such a gutsy lady, who fought for a great cause as well as for her own advancement. She was indeed one of the architects of the Tudor revolution in government, the consolidation of English governing power here at home. She was also the mother of Elizabeth 1. It was Elizabeth who had to secure her father’s Protestant settlement against Spain, which she did by leading the anti Armada campaign in 1588. The establishment of home rule took place through a simple Act of Parliament. It survived until a much later Parliament decided to give it away, once again allowing appeals to continental courts.
It is not simply that Mr Redwood is intelligent and cultured: he is wise, discerning and astute. It is a tragedy for the country that he is not even a minister of state, let alone a member of the Cabinet. And it says even more about David Cameron that he leaves such a formidable politician languishing on the backbenches while he favours and promotes those he who will say 'yes'. It is a pity the e-petitions specifically exclude appointments: if it were down to a democratic Conservative Party, John Redwood would now be Chancellor of the Exchequer. But a Conservative prime minister must be free to shape the Government he or she wishes, to preserve and reform in accordance with Burke's first principles. And that is a Tory-Whig tension Mr Redwood completely understands, even if David Cameron does not.

54 Comments:

Blogger Mr Tawse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 August 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

A fine post by John Redwood, Your Grace, and thank you for drawing attention to it. Redwood should indeed be a cabinet minister and if Dave can indulge an old Lefty like Ken Clarke, there is no excuse for side-lining a younger member of the Right such as JR. Sadly with 70 MPs forming a Tory Eurosceptic group, Dave is unlikely to give a cabinet platform to an experienced man of that ilk.


So will Anne Boleyn become the Patron saint of Eurosceptics? Why not. Boleyn was clearly a remarkable woman and her influence continues in the governance of England, even to this day.

23 August 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger Freedom Forever said...

He certainly is a loss to the nation in ministerial terms. But if all the talent congeals around government office, we'd be left with the 'outstanding mediocrities' on the backbenches.

23 August 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger Bastiat said...

He certainly is a loss to the nation in ministerial terms. But if all the talent congeals around government office, we'd be left with the 'outstanding mediocrities' on the backbenches

23 August 2011 at 10:33  
Blogger Bastiat said...

My dear Archbishop, please feel free to remove the FreedomForever comment from these pages, I was signed in to the wrong Google Account when writing that comment.

23 August 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger dmcl01 said...

In Ireland you couldn't say anything bad about the EU or you would be shouted down and called 'little englander', fascist, rascist, xenophobic etc.

Not surprisingly, those same pro-EU's are awfully quite now.

23 August 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Brilliant. John Redwood would shame most of the government, he is only excluded because it is assumed the public have a poor perception of him.

23 August 2011 at 11:15  
Blogger James Reade said...

John Redwood as Chancellor - now that's a scary thought. Someone even more economically illiterate than Osborne. I'm thankful for small mercies...

23 August 2011 at 11:41  
Blogger Cam Ma said...

Cameron would not appreciate the point, even if he understood it. All he knows is the price of everything - but the value of nothing.

23 August 2011 at 12:00  
Blogger Albert said...

The author, Howard Brenton, portrays Anne as a powerful politician in the Protestant cause. She sells the Protestant religion to a King advised by a Cardinal by appealing to Henry’s own sense of importance, self interest and need to settle his own divorce, as well as using her feminine charms over him.

It's good the hear that there were such good reasons for rending the seamless robe of Christ.

All this raises another question: where does the CofE stand over the role the atheist Chinese state is playing in persecuting the Catholic Church there over the question of loyalty to Rome?

Of course, we know what the original Thomas Cranmer would have thought of this - at his trial he was forced to admit that Nero was head of Christ Church on earth in his day.

23 August 2011 at 12:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

The 'first Eurosceptic'? Perhaps in the same vein as Herodias' challenge to Jewish law.

Eurosceptic? This is not my understanding of Ms Boleyn reasons for wanting to break from the 'shackles' of Rome and the politics of Europe.

I recall this may have had something to do with her adulturess relationship and eventual illicit 'marriage' to Henry more than any sense of religious indignation. Rome wouldn't countenance it. Simple, break free from Rome and change the canononical ruling by setting up a seperate church that would do as it was told.

Surely a case of 'conversion' following self interest. I wonder what Catherine of Aragon would think of this 'artistic' reinterpretation of history? Now there was a woman sinned against by Henry and his reformed church.

As for Thomas Cromell, certainly more religiously (politically?) motivated in his 'advice' to Henry and his counsel (manipulation) to Anne, but he too had his own particular interests in mind.

Messy business Church and Statehood at this time and I don't think many of the players shone in glory. Let's not make a heroine out of this woman who was used by her own father to promote his advancement and who had her own interests at heart.

23 August 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

According to Dr Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal, the division of Europe between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism still reverberates today. He argues that the single currency was always doomed because it attempted to unite two disparate cultures: the south with its ‘higher degree of corruption’ and the ‘northerners with their predominantly Protestant ethic’.

23 August 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger Owl said...

Mr/Mrs dmcl01,

"In Ireland you couldn't say anything bad about the EU or you would be shouted down and called 'little englander', fascist, rascist, xenophobic etc."

er, have you ever actually been to Ireland?

Your statement has no foundation.

23 August 2011 at 14:19  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Oh dear "atheist Chinese state" ...
How many times:
Communism is a RELIGION.
So it does the following:
Persecutes all the other religions - tick.
Has unalterable "holy" books - tick
Is divided into sects and heresies that hate each other worse than the unbelievers - tick
Kills millions in the name of the "holy cause" - tick
Puts out a millenial vision for the future of humanity, based on false premises - tick
THreis to force humanity into an "ideal" box of said religins making - tick
There's more, but that should do for starters.

23 August 2011 at 15:17  
Blogger Albert said...

How many times: Communism is a RELIGION.

All you've done, is list a set of unpleasant features of humanity as a whole and described them as religion. As China manifests these features, China must be a religious state. Mere tautology.

What cannot be denied is that China is (as I said), an atheist state and that it behaves in these unpleasant ways. That, by itself ought to be enough to show that these unpleasant characteristics are not the unique preserve of religions.

23 August 2011 at 15:33  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 August 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well I'm glad she's back ---to haunt the useful idiots this time, rather than Elizabeth of York's little boy Henry. So here's Holloway's gem:

Now In the Tower of London large as life,
The Ghost of Anne Boleyn walks they declare.
For Anne Boleyn was once King Henry's wife,
Until he made the 'eadsman bob her 'air!
Ah, yes, he did her wrong, long years ago
And, she comes up at night to tell him soooo!

With her head tucked underneath her arm
She walks the Bloody Tower
With her head tucked underneath her arm
At the midnight hour. [Refr]

She comes to 'aunt King Henry,
She means givin'
him 'what for',
Gadzooks! She's going to tell him off
For having split her gore,
And, just in case the headsman
Wants to give her an encore,
She has her head tucked underneath her arm.

Along the draughty corridors,
For miles and miles she goes.
She often catches cold, poor thing,
It's cold there when it blows.
And it's awfully awkward for the Queen,
To have to blow her nose,
With her head tucked underneath her arm.

Now sometimes gay King Henry gives a spread,
For all his pals and gals and ghostly crew.
The headsman carves the joint and cuts the bread
Then in comes Anne Boleyn to 'queer the do!'
She holds her head up with a wild war whoop!
And Henry cries, "Don't drop it in the soup!"

The sentries think that it's a football,
That she carries in.
And when they've had a few they shout,
'Is Ars'nal going to win?'
They think it's Alec James,
Instead of poor old Ann Boleyn,
With her head tucked underneath her arm.

One night she caught King Henry
He was in the canteen bar
Said he, "Are you Jane Seymore,
Anne Boleyn or Catherine Parr?"
"For how the sweet San Fairy Ann,
Do I know who you are?"
With your head tucked underneath your arm!

23 August 2011 at 15:50  
Blogger non mouse said...

In one way, I never could sympathise with Boleyn -- perhaps because she played the 'feminine wiles' game.

As ever, though, thanks are due to Your Grace for your part in supporting her political role and, indirectly, the birth of Elizabeth. Without the four of you, our own generation would never have known the freedom and independence it has so foolishly relinquished.

23 August 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger Oswin said...

Anne has always been a hero of mine, but hardly the 'first Eurosceptic' and certainly not the first to lose her head because of it.

Whitcliffe and the roots of Lollardy stretch back to the fateful decisions of the Synod of Whitby, and beyond still, to the Augustinian Mission and the harrying of the already ancient Celtic Church.

Freedom from 'foreign Princes' has been an issue in this land since Joseph of Arimathea first struck his staff, allegedly...leastways the legend, if nowt else, supports the contention.

23 August 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

The foundations of the Church of England - lust, greed, pride and wilful, repeated adultery. Eurosceptism? Nah, just naked ambition.

Boleyn was convicted and executed as an adulteress, for incest with her brother and for high treason. The conniving Cromwell who wanted to feather his own nest was behind this and used poor old Cranmer who he manouvered into Canterbury for his own ends. Henry just wanted a male heir and fresh sexual conquests.

Nothing noble in all this.

23 August 2011 at 16:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Synod of Whitby? Just established a common date for Easter in Britain, didn't it?

Your interpretation of a wider significance is based on an idealised post-Reformation notion there was a 'Celtic' church striving for freedom from an oppressive Rome.

There no real evidence of some kind of anti-Roman, anti-episcopalian, anti-establishment 'Celtic' church. There were differences in Scotland because of missionaries Ninian and Colombo had different backgrounds, true. But let's not overstate these.

23 August 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 August 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

Yes, Oswin. [. . .] Joseph of Arimathea first struck his staff, allegedly...leastways the legend, if nowt else, supports the contention. And I've heard say that legends have a way of turning out to be true--especially if they've lasted as long as this one!!!

You're so right about the early independence of the English Church ["at the edge of the world," as the scorners have it]. The glossaries studied by Profs. Bischoff and Lapidge provide sound evidence of further independence. What a superb linguistic/cultural weave Theodore and the others ushered in--while they preserved western scholarship. Even the big crackdown via William the Bastard couldn't destroy the result. One admits we lost much amid H8's otherwise sensible Dissolution. However, others followed along and rescued some English manuscripts, which we might never have seen if foreigners (instead of Tudors) had imposed themselves.

In any case (apart from Henry 7's end to the Wars of the Roses, and H8's relieving us from foreign taxes) surely a major value of the Tudors is their re-instatement of Celtic (British) influence in the independent Insular tapestry.

The euros have been after us and ours since time immemorial. The fight has indeed been long and noble. It's difficult, though, to imagine what good anyone can reap from the rotting pile this latest lot have engineered now we've rolled over and submitted.

Can't help fancying that only an oligopoly can profit; perhaps Blair's job in the Middle East is a vane on that one.

23 August 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Anne Boleyn a giant of the Reformation. [GASPS!]

The inspector is surprised Redwood reached this conclusion. The truth of the matter you’ve given us “the advantage of the dissolution of the monasteries.”

Henry VIII didn't want a 'reformed' English church. He killed people who suggested that !

He had to break the link to Rome to rob the church of it's wealth and land. There is every possibilty, had he lived longer, that he would have restored the link. It wouldn't have mattered then - He had his heir, and he'd spent the plunder...

Anne Boleyn’s contribution - fellatio, and probably plenty of it...

23 August 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo/The Man with No Name - yeah, sure, whatever.

Content yourself with drivel as you prefer.

23 August 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin
History is my preference and not propaganda.

23 August 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger len said...

All this 'haggling' over who has the right religion or who is the most corrupt just makes plain the fact that God would never leave His 'Church' in the hands of men. Salvation from start to finish is a work of God.And no one can live the Christian life without the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

Fallen men when they get their hands on anything corrupt it and turn it to their own ends.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not a building or a denomination but a group of people called out of the World and guided by the Spirit of Christ who lives within the believer.

I will leave you religious types to your squabbles over who has the most corrupt church it is quite plain to me that Jesus Christ would be a stranger to all of them.

23 August 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger Albert said...

just makes plain the fact that God would never leave His 'Church' in the hands of men.

Who's claiming that God left his Church in the hands of men?

23 August 2011 at 20:30  
Blogger Gavin said...

I found this bit of Mr Redwood's review particularly interesting:
"She comes across as an early Eurosceptic, wishing England to settle its own affairs at home without recourse to Rome. She dislikes the intervention of Roman authority between a person and their God [...]"

Mr Redwood seems to draw a close analogy between the purely political case for the Reformation, and the more personal, spiritual aspect of it. I found it interesting and insightful the way he writes those two sentences together. There's a whole debate to be had on its own there, as to whether he is conflating two separate issues, or whether one views them as two sides of the same coin. I have my own opinion on this, but for the moment at least, all I wanted to say was that I found it fascinating to read those two sentences together...sometimes someone's words can open a window in your mind, giving you an unexpected insight into how other people view things. This was one of those moments. It's cool when that happens!

23 August 2011 at 20:50  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Christ very clearly established His Church and placed it in the hands of the Apostles under the constant guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. That's what Scripture tells us. Don't you believe this?

Tell me, are you a Gnostic?

What is your objection to Constantine's toleration of Christianity enacted in 313? The date 315 you keep citing as the date of some supposed union between paganism and Christianity predates the First Council of Nicaea in 325 when the beginnings of an agreed Creed of the Church was settled.

Was this paganism combined with Christianity under the corruption of a Roman Emperor?

Do you subscribe to the Nicaea basic building blocks of the Christian faith?

23 August 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gavin,

Shh.

His Grace might agree.

But one must take care, lest Mr Dodo accuse Mr Redwood of being a bigot.

23 August 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr OIG @ 18.26, you are being unkind.

There are a number of biographies of Anne Boleyn that refer to her education in France where she apparently became interested in Luther's attack on the corruption of the Roman Church. Maybe you can remember you own student days where anything new has a unique freshness that stays with you for the rest of your life. So it would have been with Boleyn, who would have carried the Lutheran ideas back to England. We forget how Protestant France was during this period. King Henri IV, a contemporary of Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth, was a Huguenot, as you are no doubt aware.

23 August 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Archbishop Cranmer
Not a bigot at all; never crossed my mind! Not certainly not bigotry. Something else maybe, but not bigotry.

Gavin
You liked Mr Redwoods observations?

Yes especially when those earthly representatives of God in Rome will not let you have your own way at home.

No good stamping your feet or using your famed oral skills learned in the French Court. A way around this? Henry is just too attached to his faith. What to do?

Turn faith into one that is individually inspired, dismiss Roman canon law and follow the guidance of the Spirit instead. Cromwell hands you the literature for you to begin to beguile Henry. Right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right.

Anne Boleyn was a puppet in the hands of bigger forces that proved her eventual undoing. Not a Eurosceptic, just a woman who allowed herself to be used in persuit of her own earthly ambition.

Ps
No need to whisper.

23 August 2011 at 22:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog

The Inspector is aware that Anne received a first class education and was an intelligent women. However, as non mouse put it, she relied on her ‘womanly wiles’ to enchant Henry. She not only carried her learning back to England, but French lovemaking techniques as well. The Inspector suggests that Henry was far more interested in Anne’s expertise at fellatio than what she had to say (when she had the chance to speak !)

I’m sure she was a charming lady, but lets not go over the top at a time when a women’ s advice counted for little...

23 August 2011 at 22:29  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Archbishop Cranmer
Actually, I'm a little bit teeded off that you think I would accuse Mr Redwood of bigotry.

I reserve the term 'bigot' for those whom I believe demonstrate no basis in reason or evidence for derogatory comments about other groups in this society we happen to share and have to make the best of together.

I just don't agree with his view of Anne Boleyn or the history it implies.

In the past I accussed you of this. I apologised and withdrew the accusation. Can we let this rest?

23 August 2011 at 23:09  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 August 2011 at 23:19  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Office of Inspector General

Sir, it is ungentlemanly to talk openly of a woman's sexual skill and any unique, less orthodox techniques she might possess.

Lets just say that Anne, a young and beautiful girl, was talented orally though not verbally, and was a woman of such charming femininity the King could scarce resist?

23 August 2011 at 23:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

While agreeing that Anne probably learned an unfortunate ways at the froggish court (as did Mary Queen of Scots), I do also agree with Mr. bluedog on the probable power of her Lutheran interests. And I must contend against the suggestion that women of the day lacked influence.

As Oswin reminded us, the fourteenth-century English response to RC corruption (indulgences, etc) is well attested; as is the call for access to Scripture in English. Certainly, we see it through Chaucer and Langland; but the poets were themselves in a climate of Lollardy - followers of Wyclif, whose reformatory ideas may have influenced Luther.

And the 14th century connection with the Tudors is stronger still: Shakespeare's interest in it wasn't accidental! They didn't forget that Wyclif and Chaucer's world was also that of John of Gaunt: the mighty Lancastrian patriarch of the Tudors, by way of little Margaret Beaufort.**

Margaret: Matriarch of the Tudors. She was the great-granddaughter of Gaunt and his erstwhile mistress, Katherine Swynford; so the challenge to papal marriage edicts had form, with them.

Margaret: a remarkable and extremely powerful woman, especially during the reign of her son, H7 (she had, after all, master-minded its inception). H7 was born at Pembroke Castle, which H6 had given to the Tudors: and "Marquess of Pembroke" was the title H8 gave to Anne.

Margaret: who kept a close eye on Elizabeth of York (daughter of the dissolute E4). It was Margaret, too, who oversaw much of H8's education; and how she might have affected his view of women..... !! ?? !! John Skelton was one of his tutors. But although he also criticised RCs. I think that none of these people were anti-RC itself, to start with. After all, Bishop John Fisher, who had the temerity to oppose Boleyn's marriage (and refused Henry's oath of supremacy), had been one of Margaret's principle mentors.

As you may gather, I admire Margaret immensely (from this safe distance). Can't help suspecting that Elizabeth inherited a characteristic or two from her, as well as learning from her mother's mistakes.

**Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood provide a biography: The King's Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: CUP, 1992.

24 August 2011 at 00:59  
Blogger non mouse said...

sorry for the typos-- btw I meant that Lollards were followers of Wyclif. Not that Chaucer was: that is a much debated point; and I don't know the answer!

24 August 2011 at 01:06  
Blogger The Worker said...

Were the abuses of Roman Catholicism so deeply entrenched there was no option other than separating Christians from it?

Could the forces of reform already at work within the Church have succeeded in returning it to the right path once more?

As in the 16th century, for Roman Catholics the avenue of internal reform is the chosen route trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church from evil and ensuring it fulfils its Divine purpose. For Protestants the Church is so far removed from Truth it is beyond recovery and has to be replaced.

Trust in Apostolic succession and in Christ’s word or usurpation of a God given, guaranteed authority replacing this with faith in individual men?

As in all ages personal ambitions and human weaknesses alongwith other interests cloud religious judgement.

24 August 2011 at 01:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Actually, I'm a little bit teeded off that you think I would accuse Mr Redwood of bigotry... Can we let this rest?"

Mr Dodo,

His Grace is not familiar with being 'teeded off', so is unable to ascertain the degree of objection. But it is you who constantly bandy the term around upon His Grace's blog; it is you who readily point out when someone offers an 'incoherent, historically inaccurate and politically ignorant set of statements' (in your opinion), and then accuse them of 'bigotry', which is itself bigotry.

Reading a previous thread, you allege that anyone who draws a correlation between the Church of Rome and the Treaty of Rome is a bigot. John Redwood clearly does that (or perhaps not 'clearly': it is rather subtle, but - for those who have ears - he certainly links the two, as Mr Gavin mentions, and to which Mr Johnny Rottenborough links). Or is it simply that people you disagree with and despise are bigots, and those you disagree with and respect are not, even when they say the thing?

24 August 2011 at 08:40  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Archbishop Cranmer

You'll have to refer me to the specific post where you draw the conclusion I consider anyone who links the Treaty of Rome with Roman Catholicism to be a bigot.

I do believe anyone who implies or states without evidence that there is a hidden, sinister agenda on the part of the Vatican to regain temporal power through the EU and the UN is a bigot (i.e. displaying prejudice, deep seated animosity and fear). This is especially so when wilder claims are made, based on imagination, that Roman Catholicism is the seat of the coming antichrist and intent on ensnaring the souls of men.

The values of Roman Catholicism are, as discussed on earlier threads, out of tune with the more British and American 'Prostestant Ethic'. Europe too goes against the grain of total sovereignty in national affairs. I would refer you to my discussions about this with Paul Twigg in connection with Adrian Hilton's book if you want to know my views.

By the way, "teeded off" is common parlance for impatience and annoyance.

24 August 2011 at 14:06  
Blogger len said...

As I was saying who has the most corrupt religion//denomination?.

Well the Popes did pretty well in the depravity stakes, and Henry was no saint.I would say the only good Henry did was to pull the church out of the clutches of Rome albeit for his own ends.

Thankfully the Church Jesus Christ initiated and empowers through His Spirit has nothing to do with 'organised religion'..
God will not allow'organised religion' anywhere near His Plan for the salvation of Humanity hence the organised church is the dead or dying church(whether it has realised this or not.)

24 August 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Man with No Name

You are of course correct in principle. A gentleman would never openly discuss a lady’s bedroom reputation. With Anne, her activities have been in the public domain for so long, I’m sure a few more lines won’t hurt.
On a different matter, the Inspector has always wondered how the plethora of new young ‘celebrities’ ever get to where they are – lacking in talent and personality as they are. Maybe they followed in Anne’s footsteps...

Non Mouse

English History is full of strong influential women – but in nearly every situation, they were the daughters of peers. They were born into it – which makes Anne the commoner’s achievement all the more remarkable.

24 August 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Gavin said...

I suppose it cannot be denied that the Vatican has at the very least expressed a wish/hope that the EU should be founded on Christian (or possibly specifically Catholic) principles. The question is, to what extent does this imply a desire for actual political influence, and to what extent is it merely an understandable benevolent wish for the EU to uphold Christianity?

Even if one shrugs and answers "well, it's probably a bit of both things", you can see the potential problem for Protestant countries such as the UK: The UK is an EU member. EU law overrides Parliamentary law. So, IF the Vatican has real political clout within the EU, then some would say that (whether intentionally or not), Rome has the potential to usurp our Parliament and established church, having sneaked in through the back door.
(However, it's a big "if", and I don't know how much clout the Vatican actually does have within the EU, or even if it is seeking such clout. Anyway, it's bad enough that EU law overrides Parliamentary law, no matter who is running the EU).

24 August 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Still waiting for your answer tomy earlier question, especially now given your announced open opposition to ALL organised Christian churches.

"Tell me, are you a Gnostic?"

What is your objection to Constantine's toleration of Christianity enacted in 313? The date 315 you keep citing as the date of some supposed union between paganism and Christianity predates the First Council of Nicaea in 325 when the beginnings of an agreed Creed of the Church was settled.

Was this paganism combined with Christianity under the corruption of a Roman Emperor?

Do you subscribe to the Nicaea basic building blocks of the Christian faith?"

24 August 2011 at 19:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

In their haste to set us all at odds, the marxist class-and gender-polarizers highlight Anne as "a commoner," Mr. OIG(@18:43). But I say she was not a common commoner, by any standards!

If her diplomat father descended from a long line of merchants, her mother was a Howard - of the Dukes of Norfolk. And her maternal grandmother was the daughter and heiress of Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormond. (Wikipedia, it's true; but easily verified elsewhere).

All sources tell us she was born at Hever Castle (which belonged to her father).

"Her father, Thomas Boleyn, was a member of the Privy Council . . . It was Thomas' travels to France that earned Anne, and her older sister Mary, a place at French court. Both of them spent time as lady's maids to royal members of the French court." (departments.kings.edu)

Surely, then, it is also remarkable that the aristocracy allied themselves with (wealthy) merchants; and with the Irish? Perhaps we are not so traditionally replete with class and gender hatred as our enemies would have us believe?

24 August 2011 at 20:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

non mouse - it just goes to show that with all that geneology behind her, she was still, in law, a 'commoner' !! Also, 'Old Money' was just as suspicious of 'New Money' as in our recent past...

24 August 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,I am certainly not a gnostic.
You seem somewhat puzzled as to what 'religion 'I am, you seem to be wanting some sort of 'grounds' to attack me on.
Well,let me explain.
When I said I was a' born again Christian 'peoples reactions are either surprised or derisory almost as though one was an' alien being' which in some sense we 'born again`s' are.The' born again 'is a new Creation a species which never existed before.
You cannot join the 'Body of Christ ' you have to be born into it.This is 'entry level 'Christianity.Nothing whatever to do with religions or denominations.
God views us as being 'In Adam ' or 'In Christ'.This is purely a spiritual matter.
'In Christ'we are joined, spiritually united, with Him.Therefore when Christ died I died when Christ was resurrected I was lifted up in Him.Christ has put His Life into me, the 'old me' no longer exists.All this was done by Christ through the Cross at Calvary.

Religion cannot change a man only the Spirit of Christ can, this is why I cannot tolerate religion.Religion in its basest form tries to be 'as God' and is a satanic deception.

All this is quite plainly explained in the Gospels and being born -again is God re- creating man in the context which He originally planned.

24 August 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

So how, why and when does it happen?

To all, to many, to some, to few?

Where does free will come in?

25 August 2011 at 00:25  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,These are questions only God can answer and I wouldn`t presume to.

All I know is that if you search for God with all your being He will reveal himself to you.This might take minutes it might take years.
God is Sovereign and the only One who has total free will.He does what He will.
God`s Word is unchangeable and if He says He will do a thing then that is a fact.That to me is the magnificent thing about God ,His total integrity.
God`s said through Jeremiah the Prophet (Jeremiah 29:13 )

'You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.'
...........................

I am nothing special,I am as a matter of fact rather ordinary, a 'jar of clay' containing a treasure inside, my spirit re-united, re-born, re- connected with Jesus Christ.Everything to do with the spiritual rebirth is totally a work of God`s Grace.

The vine and the branches also gives a good description of how Jesus gives His life to born again believers.
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)

25 August 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

I wish you well on your spiritual journey. May God Bless and protect you.

25 August 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I wish you well,when all else has been swept away the ultimate reality ,the ultimate Truth, is contained in Christ alone.
God Bless.

26 August 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Absolutely and Amen to that!

26 August 2011 at 23:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older