FAO "Brit-o-philes"

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by wyndysascha

Hello Pearl of Tyburn and Everyone!

I apologise for not posting for a while; been extremely busy, starting up a new business and getting to grips with Catholic doctrine!

So, to re-pick up the thread...

I don't recall anything about Revolutionary Boston's anti-Catholicism, but I'm not surprised. Massachusetts had a history of anti-Catholic sentiment; in 1647, for example, Jesuits were forbidden from the colony on pain of death. It found its roots in the anti-France and anti-Indian missionary sentiment of the time. As the Enlightenment developed and a trans-Atlantic culture of political discourse grew, Catholicism became associated in Boston (and other political centres) with Popish tyranny against Puritan democracy - this was in line with British Radical thought, that organised religion in general and Catholicism in particular was fundamentally opposed to liberty. The Gordon Riots of 1780 show how highly anti-Catholic sentiment ran in London; a mirror anti-Catholicism fed in part by the fear that the Revolutionary War was a Franco-Catholic plot!

Of course, we can see with hindsight that any fear that George III was a Catholic convert was completely ill-founded - he was willing to derail the promise of Catholic Emancipation with the Acts of Union, such was his belief that political toleration of Catholicism would jeopardise the Church of England and violate his coronation oath.

So, levelling accusations against your enemy of "being Catholic" is pretty par for the course in this period! I'd imagine anyone associated with any form of episcopalianism could leave themselves open to the charge that they were "taking orders from Rome" and thus were enemies of liberty.

As an Englishman, I think it's very interesting how "anti-Catholicism" has remained in the public consciousness in the United States, mutating from one form to the other. Besides what I've mentioned above, it could be seen in resistance to the waves of immigration from Catholic countries (notably, Ireland and Italy) in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Is it still alive today? The popularity of Dan Brown's stuff might suggest, Yes!

All Best Wishes,

wyndysascha

I would love it if I could get a citation for this

[wyndysascha]

I would love it if I could get a citation for this

It'd be my pleasure - however, I've had to get this from my old university notes so (i) the scholarship might have been superseded, and (ii) I hope they were accurate in the first place!

My own citation for the note is Haydon's Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England, c. 1714-80 (1993), p206. That itself was based on earlier work done by Davidson in Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763-1783 (1941, pp 125-8).

The anti-Catholic element manifested in a few different ways, that it was tied-up with any number of other factors (e.g. rebel vs. loyalist in America, the fractured British political opinion on the War, which of these grouping had trans-Atlantic links with each other, "domestic Protestantism" vs. continental Counter-Reformation)... the Gordon Riots also had a class and economic dimension to them that historians of some traditions might argue form the underlying basis of any apparent ideological or political dispute. Peter Brown, in considering why parliamentary reform stalled after the Riots, notes that Burke saw the rioting as "inebriated violence" (Brown); a contemporary perspective of Burke's rooted in an Eighteenth-Century distrust of the mob, probably viz. the 1778 attempt to relieve Catholic disabilities with the Papists Act by "more enlightened" classes.

So it's possible that the Gordon Riots simply saw the release of popular paranoias by an out-of-control mob, but those paranoias ran very deep. Linking the rebelling colonies with their Catholic allies may well have seemed logical!

[wyndysascha]

Originally Posted by Pearl of Tyburn

Hi, wyndysascha!

Good to hear from you. I hope everything goes well with your business. By the way, what type of business is it?

Hmm, anti-Catholicism in America.....If the HHS Mandate is any indication, it's still up and about Although I must admit, that smacks more of empty-headed liberalism than strident anti-Catholicism. Sometimes I think it would be easier to take on the hearty Protestants of old rather than these ding-dong liberals who have such "open minds" their brains fall out!

At least the Reformation-era Protestants believed firmly in something. These left-wingers stand for everything, and therefore believe in nothing! It gets rather difficult to stomach. Today, my dear native state, Maryland My Maryland, just legalized homosexual marriage. Yuck! We're hoping to launch a referendum. Please pray it works out and we're able to overturn this nonesense.

Anyway, getting back to King George III and company.....Yes, they definately had the wrong idea calling him a Catholic convert! But in spite of his squashing the early push for Catholic Emancipation, I do respect for his integrety in not wanting to break (as he saw it) his coronation oath. I actually think he was one of the better men to sit on the throne of Britain. In fact, a friend of mine just was asking me for some good websites about George III because she is trying to write an essay in his defense. Do you know of any in particular?

Do you like music much, wyndysasha? If so, what is your favorite genre? I simply love British folk music. Do you sing or play and instrument?

God Bless,
Pearl

I'm afraid that all I know of the HHS mandate is what I read about on the internet. I'm obviously not any kind of American legal or constitutional scholar but it seems to me to be a matter of where the dividing line is between what the State can expect of its citizens in terms of obedience to the law, and what a citizen can expect in terms of their rights as enshrined in the Constitution... is this an accurate approach? I had always believed that the first ten amendments were held as absolutes, especially the First, and I'm not sure how people can demand their absolute right to freedom of speech while be a bit iffy on the free exercise of religion. Surely it then follows that the issue isn't Whether or not religious (or religion-based) institutions should be exempt, but that they Are and the issue should be What constitutes a religion for the purposes of the exemption that the First Amendment demands? The "two cents" of a non-American non-expert!

As for George III... I don't know of any good websites, but for an insight into the man's mind your friend could do worse than go to Sir John Fortescue's Correspondence (as recent an edition as possible, the editorial work was corrected heavily by Namier) and to Aspinall's Later Correspondence. It's difficult to defend George III when he gives every impression of interfering in complex constitutional arrangements he didn't seem to understand fully. That having been said, it's equally difficult to believe that he was the nascent tyrant that contemporary radicals and reformers made him out to be; and active blame for the political causes of the imperial crises of the 1770s and '80s has to at least be shared with the ministers he trusted and the ones foisted on him that he didn't.

There's also the structural issues of the First Empire to consider: George III can hardly be held accountable for the fact that - as Thomas Paine pointed out - there are problems for a small island in governing a large continent that doesn't want to be governed! The Second Empire, far more than the First, recognised the necessity of light-touch governance in co-operation with local elites. How far George III's interference caused or contributed to his government's ill-advised and inconsistent hard-headedness in dealing with colonial grievances and elites is the question here.

It's difficult to assess "how good" a monarch George III was, I think, seeing as how his reign sits on the (admittedly fairly wide) fault line between different ideas of kingship: the one being of a monarch commanding the state, either in his own interests (as absolutists would have it) or, however nominally, "in the national interest"; and the other being of a monarch that "reigns" instead of "rules". I think it's fair to say that the oligarchies ruling the country at this time could expect the King to act almost as the Chairman of the Board of Great Britain Inc. (see Schama for that turn of phrase!), and for more forceful monarchs to at least act in accordance with their interests (e.g in promoting and defending national commerce). When held against his no-good son, I think George III stands out as being far more preferable!

I suppose that's an interesting question for readers... who is your favourite British (or even English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh) monarch, and Why?

I don't really have any specific musical tastes, I'm afraid... if something comes along that I like, then I'll pick it up then! I don't really play an instrument either, although I'd like to.

wyndysascha

[Pearl of Tyburn]

Hi, wyndysasha!

Good question about the British monarchs. Personally, my four favorites are King Henry VI, Queen Mary I, King George III, and King George VI.

King Henry VI was a basically decent person who had a very high code of morality for his position and time period. He was against impurity, excessive brutality, and the corruption of the court, and he did his best to support learning and the arts. True, he was a pretty inept politician whose kingdom was plunged into civil war and who personally "lost his head" in more ways than one! But I still admire the man, and would support his cause for canonization.

Queen Mary I was also a basically "good egg" with a great deal of courage and skill. Unfortunately, she relied too heavilly on Spain and her husband and her plans came to naught. She burnt heretics, 'tis true, but this was a violent time, and she should not be exclusively blamed for a widespread practice. She was a strong Catholic and almost became a martyr at different intervals.

King George III strikes me as a stubborn yet long-suffering man who tried to take control of things in a robust way that made people edgy. He wasn't brilliant, but he was far more intelligent than most history books give him credit for. He was scientifically and agriculturally minded, he was highly religious, he loved his family, and he tried to do what was best for his country. Unfortunately, he refused to take any advice that contradicted his own instinct, often resulting in disaster.

King George VI, the present Queen's father, was thrown into the throne after his brother took off with a divorcee. Unfortunately for him, the toss occured on the eve of a world war and he had to work hard to upgrade his public image and be an inspiration for the British people. Really, he was pretty close to being the last king of Britain. But he claimed that if Hitler took over, he would just go underground and lead the resistence. This probably wouldn't have happened, but it's interesting that he thought about it!

[Skeptic92]

Born in Glasgow, Raised in Birmingham studying in Wales.

Not sure how much more British you can get

[Pearl of Tyburn]

Hi, Skeptic92!

I'm terribly sorry for the "ever after" delay in officially welcoming you to the group! Therefore, I say now in a loud and clear voice: WELCOME!!!

Born in Scotland, raised in England, and studying in Wales....Indeed, you are a quintessential Brit! You've told me elsewhere that you are interested in going into politics. How is that progressing? Will you tell the group about your political theory?

What are your other hobbies? What is your favorite place in the UK? You must have a very unique accent!

Blessings,
Pearl of Tyburn

[Edmundus1581]

Originally Posted by Pearl of Tyburn

Welcome, Not Sure and Bluebell Wood! What interesting usernames you both have

Dido, Not Sure, about regretting Henry VIII's break with the Church. It makes me so sad to think of all the generations of British people who could have recieved the sacraments and did not because of him. The whole thing was really ludicrous. I also share a bit of your Jacobite sympathy although I'm not as pro-Jacobite as some people I know. There were so many complexities in the causes of the rebellions that summing them up as "Catholic vs. Protestant wars" or "English vs. Scottish wars" is far from being correct. Furthermore, some people get stuck in time and mettle with the "what ifs" of the '45 for way too long in my opinion.

What Shakespere plays/poems have you read thus far, Not Sure? I have read The Merchant of Venice and bits and pieces of Henry V. I just love the speeches in that, especially the Crispan's Day Speech and Henry's internal thoughts about the difficulties of being king. I know the real Henry was a pretty brutal character, but Shakespere did do an excellent job making him inspirational.

Bluebell, I see that like myself and Not Sure, you are a constitutional monarchist. Nice I, too, think that the changes in the royal inheritance rules are a step in the right direction and hope to see a Catholic monarch before I die. However, as other members have pointed out in the thread on the subject, things could get pretty sticky if the government distances itself too much from the COE, since that at least provides the nation with nominal Christianity.


I looked up St. Melangell! Thanks so much for sharing that link! I love the story about how she protected hares from hunters in a Welsh glen. As a proud bunny owner, I like her already. I love the way how Celtic saints usually have some connection with animals.

I hope you both have a nice weekend!

God Bless,
Pearl of Tyburn

Thankyou for the nice long post, Pearl! Sorry that it's been so long since I dropped in on the Campionites.

Henry V's Crispin's Day speech is one of my favourite passages from Shakespeare as well.

I have an amusing anecdote about that. I have an Aussie friend who is a serious Anglophile. He is an Anglican (with a Calvinist, rather than High-Church, leaning, btw) and knows Oscar Wilde and Monty Python through and through. Some years ago on 25 October he reminded me that it was the anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt, and I responded by wishing him a "Happy Crispin's day". I was surprised by his blank look, so I told him gently that he should like it up

I only know the speech as an extract, but haven't read or seen the whole play. This is a reminder to get a DVD and watch it.

Can anyone recommend a good version of Henry V on DVD?

[Pearl of Tyburn]

Hi, Edmundus!

Nice to hear from you again

Yes, I do like Henry V's Crispan Day speech. It's so punchy - really, it could make a man (or woman!) charge through fire and water to face the foe!

Ha, ha, good job educating your low-Anglican friend! I guess it's easy enough to overlook (St. Crispan isn't exactly on the top 10 for many), but for King Harry groupee he should play a prominent role.

I have watched Sir Laurence Olivier's screen version of Henry V which was made during WWII as an inspirational piece. It really did an excellent fulfilling its role, and the music was quite deep and stirring. Olivier, to me, is the definitive Henry V, although Kenneth Branagh has often been hailed as the more realistic imitation of the real King Henry.

But then that brings up the subject: Should Shakespeare plays about historical characters be played to bring to light their "real" aspects or those contrived by the author? Sometimes trying to be too historically accurate in a Shakespeare play actually ruins the original intent and the meaning of the whole production!

What do you think, Edmundus?

God Bless,
Pearl

[Edmundus1581]

That speech stirs the blood all-right! "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.." .. and ".. will hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks, that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day!"

I've just watched the Kenneth Brannaugh on youtube, and the start of Olivier, and I like the earthy, familiar, Brannaugh more than the eloquent Olivier.. but I may be judging prematurely.

I'm flat out with work at the moment, but will definitely be returning to this subject, and I'll put "Henry V" as my next movie purchase. The library might have it also.

My other topic outside work at the moment is a minor dispute with my brother about whether it is correct to speak of our "Judeo-Christian" heritage. He thinks not, but I disagree. I'm going to have to read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation" to be better informed.

~ Edmundus