"..if you don't like it then don't watch it"
A nudist could say the same thing. I am tired of being told to turn a blind eye to hate, abortion, etc., in the name of freedom. In the name of true freedom, Enough!

gee op if you don't like it then don't watch it

SDG, thanks for the insight into this movie. I was assuming it would go this way. I'll just go back to screaming, "Sure, let's forget all about Lepanto!" at the TV.

Henry VIII wasn't concerned about what his people thought, or what kind of turmoil would ensue after his death. He wanted money, more than anything, and he could only get that from the foreign thrones if he had Mary up for grabs.

What did you expect? This is a movie about Queen Elizabeth. The first one came out years ago and it had some of the same stuff in it. It is Hollywood history. Who cares.

Perhaps it's hindsight, but OTOH, the French king of that time also had only a daughter and married her off to the heir to the throne. So the concept was not alien to the era.
Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII by Karen Lindsey is interesting on the topic -- despite the subtitle, which affects only small portions of the work.

Given all that Mary and Elizabeth went through before reaching the throne, it's a wonder that both queens weren't raving paranoiacs.
---
What was Henry's actual motivation for wanting to divorce Catherine? Was it concern for the succession if he lacked a male heir, or was it lust for an ambitious mistress?
If it was the former, it seems to me (as a non-historian), that a good solution would have been to marry Mary to Reginald Pole (who later became Cardinal Pole). He was English, which would have avoided the problem that the English people had with the Spanish (and often absent) Philip. He was a Plantagenet, which would have bolstered the somewhat questionable beginnings of the Tudor dynasty. And I imagine he would have been a good king, since I gather he was later a good churchman. And I don't get the impression that Mary was really raised to be a ruler.
Or is that 20-20 hindsight?

"Is it true that Elizabeth in one month hanged more people than Mary put to death in her whole reign and that the Protestants who coined the 'Bloody Mary' tag had the better publicists? If this is true can anyone provide a source."
According to Dr. Anne Carroll, in her "Christ the King Lord of History" textbook, Mary Tudor killed 104 persons during her short reign of 5 years. Henry VIII killed 649, and Elizabeth killed 189 in England, and many more in Ireland, during her long reign of 40-some years.
Foxe's "book of martyrs" - the notorious anti-Catholic screed, lists Mary's total at 273, which is really what earned her the moniker "Bloody Mary." That, and the fact that she reigned only for 5 years. Dr. Carroll explains the discrepancy this way: "A careful study of the book [Foxe's Book of Martyrs], however, shows that 169 of the persons in it are listed only by name and were most probably criminals who would have been executed no matter who was ruling. That leaves 104 persons who were executed by Mary for a religious-related reason. However, it is important to realize that Protestant leaders tried to keep Mary off the throne and were plotting against her...They were guilty of treason, a capital offense in any country."
I have Dr. Carroll's husband's books, too, the "Cleaving of Christendom," but don't have time right now to look up if he gives any further information on the total numbers killed by Mary and Elizabeth. But Dr. Anne Carroll basically concludes that "Mary Tudor has been unfairly named 'Bloody Mary.'" "'Bloody Henry' and 'Bloody Elizabeth' would be much more accurate names."

"you might want to get a college university"
I'd like to get a college university if it will help me understand things better. Sounds expensive though. Do a lot of folks have them?

a lot of your prechristian theories were proven false in the 21st century

Um.
Just in the last several years?
Which ones?

Is it true that Elizabeth in one month hanged more people than Mary put to death in her whole reign and that the Protestants who coined the 'Bloody Mary' tag had the better publicists?
If this is true can anyone provide a source.

Actually, I've heard somewhat the opposite -- that both Elizabeth and Bloody Mary killed roughly the same number of Catholics and Protestants, respectively; the difference being that Mary's reign was much shorter (and thus more "bloody") than Elizabeth's. If you combine the number of Catholics killed during both Henry VIII's reign and Elizabeth's reign, however, I think it adds up to more than the number of Protestants killed by Bloody Mary.
One statistic I HAVE heard, and am still trying to verify, is that more Catholics were killed during Elizabeth's reign than non-Catholics killed by Catholics during the Crusades and the Inquisition combined (still trying to verify that, though).

aristotle
i guess you didn't understand what you read when you read the treatise.
you might want to get a college university a lot of your prechristian theories were proven false in the 21st century

Essau,
I really appreciate you pointing that out. You know your group is outside sympathy range when an outright attack like this with no other purpose than to vilify an entire group is met with ... Ut Unum Sint?
I mean I am grateful the ole chestnuts of the Inquisition, Crusades, and Counter-Reformation were not rolled out, but Ut Unum Sint?
Presumably the reason our troll friend is Protestant, as opposed to Hindu for example, is because he does not want to go to Hell. Does that make him anti-Hindu simply by virtue of the fact he is Protestant?
Follow the logic to its conclusion and, in a PC world, no one should be allowed to believe in any one religion.
Which I would say sums up post-Christian America's malaise perfectly.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Oct 13, 2007 12:54:29 PM

SubbleSpark:
Thanks --
Hopefully, the original poster will take heed of the logic you've presented so clearly in your post here.
God continue to bless ya!

"thomas more's treatise on the sadness of christ was written for elizabeth's benefit by the way."
And benefited, sadly, little.

SDG,
Good stuff. Your posts on subjects like this one is yet one more reason why God created JA.O. I used to like Katie. Sniff. Sniff. :-)

there are two mary's:
one is queen of scots, raised in a french court...i think she was elizabeth's cousin and not her sister but i could be mistaken
the other is 'bloody' mary...the spanish one, who allegedly died of natural causes.
since they were was a lot of strife at that time...cloak and dagger type stuff...and murder..i tend to believe mary was murdered by poison and did not die from natural causes. it was not in england's best interests for her to live and to continue restoring the catholic church in the newly protestant england. nor was it in england's best interests to be taken over by spain through her marriage to phillip
ps: the movie is not that good... i saw a review on tv last night...its not going to do well at the theatre...so need to worry

Mary, half sister of Elizabeth, was murdered?
No, she's supposed to have died of natural causes. According to Wikipedia, they think she died of cancer.

the secret service are the ones who created evidence to accuse mary queen of scots of conspiracy...and have her head chopped off. those spies are the ones who murdered Mary...elizabeth's spanish half sister...the granddaughter of isabella....the daugther of henry's first wife.
Say what?....Mary, half sister of Elizabeth, was murdered????

Apparently the Catholic Cathedral in London was used to film the scenes with King Philip:
see here
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-do-not-...

As I recall it, the first Elizabeth movie presented everybody as sinister B-movie stereotypes

True. Not that the Catholics don't come off worse even in the original, I think (the black-robed DANIEL CRAIG priest-assassin striding toward Elizabeth in the church looks just Darth Maul!), but the first Elizabeth has been reasonably compared to The Godfather movies, a film about rival crime families and Elizabeth finding the ruthlessness to protect her interests by killing off her enemies.
The sequel is much more good-versus-evil, with Good played by Protestantism and Evil played by Catholicism.

"I feel that even the first "Elizabeth" movie presented Catholics as sinister-looking B-movie stereotypes."
As I recall it, the first Elizabeth movie presented everybody as sinister B-movie stereotypes; this is no doubt because, despite it's mammoth budget, it actually was a B-movie.
Unfortunately, those are the movies that get the sequels......

"that's why henry killed 6 wives remember?"
Nitpicky me: He actually didn't kill 6 wives.
Catherine of Aragon died of natural causes, after he divorced her.
Anne Boleyn--executed.
Jane Seymour died of natural causes,after giving birth to Henry's much desired (& short-lived) son.
Katherine Howard--2nd wife to be executed.
Anna of Cleves: Henry had the marriage annulled.
Katherine Parr outlived Henry.
I am not defending the man...He was a tyrant & mad as a March Hare. But he killed 2 wives, not six. (Yes, I know: pedantic).

thomas more's treatise on the sadness of christ was written for elizabeth's benefit by the way.

thomas moore actually would not speak on the matter he assisted henry with in the church...but when it came to make a public declaration of loyalty to henry as ruler of the church of england...he wouldn't go for it. he would not publicly declare his loyalty to henry as a leader of the church and that is why he was killed. he wasn't killed because of the annulment...he was killed because he wouldn't worship and declare henry as pope.
i agree henry was an idiot but all the men in those days were....they didn't think a woman could rule....it offended their sexual image...hence their chauvinism and pride was put to shame..by GOD AND MARY QUEEN OF HEAVEN. yet he was right about needing an annulment from catherine because it wasn't a valid marriage. he couldn't give consent to marry.

"In actuality, Elizabeth established the first modern police state. The one that became the model for Soviet Russia and Communist China. That nightmare state where the government secretly spirited away, tortured, and killed her own citizens. The same state that used spies and secret police to keep her own citizens in line."
fascinating...i did not know that her form of govt was a model for soviet russia and communist china...however i did know about the spies and secret police...etc...who do you think started the protestant movement? however, they started before elizabeth rose to power....who do you think is behind the attacks on the catholic church in america today? why are they doing it?
the secret service are the ones who created evidence to accuse mary queen of scots of conspiracy...and have her head chopped off. those spies are the ones who murdered Mary...elizabeth's spanish half sister...the granddaughter of isabella....the daugther of henry's first wife.

i mean that isabella and elizabeth are the same name. mean the same thing in spanish and english. so its intersting that they share the same name.

J.R. Stoodley,
In light of Mary's analysis of drunkenness, I must say your post sounded rather rational so I would be inclined to go out on a limb and suggest that you may only be in the venial realm. Of course, only you know for sure. In any event, you will probably receive your penance in the morning, in direct proportion to the level of sin involved.
In public school, somewhere in the misty past, I seem to recall our history lessons taking a decidedly triumphant perspective wrt Elizabeth and Protestant England, as well as a negative view of all things Catholic. It is no surprise, in retrospect, that when the victor writes the history, there is very little self-recrimination. I haven't seen this film, but frankly expected it to be what reports say that it is, and I doubt I will see it except perhaps later when it is on DVD. I'll decide that then. But this is really no surprise, is it?

Thanks for the patience and prayers.

Not to worry, Stoodley. As for patience, you haven't tried ours; as for prayers, you bet. I will remember you before the Blessed Sacrament two hours hence. You talk about celebrities, now.

"all of the problems in the holy roman empire occured because women were ascending to the throne in many kingdoms...(that's why henry killed 6 wives remember?)"
Ah, no. That is incorrect. In fact, "incorrect" may not be a strong enough word. How about "Jackchickincongruous"? Yes, I think that is the right word.
How could you even say that and then mention great Catholic women leaders like Isabella of Spain?
Henry VI killed his wives because he was a very very bad man and very good Catholic men like St. Thomas Moore tried to stop him from divorcing. St. Thomas did not get beheaded for trying to uphold some dynastic ideal, in fact he cared not a wit for that kind of talk.
In actuality, Elizabeth established the first modern police state. The one that became the model for Soviet Russia and Communist China. That nightmare state where the government secretly spirited away, tortured, and killed her own citizens. The same state that used spies and secret police to keep her own citizens in line.
All in order to keep power for herself. But whatever. She was a woman so everything she did was gold.

ps: i still think it was god's will for a woman to ascend the throne because that was all that was being born at the time in various countries. interesting that the two most important queens were named elizabeth/isabella

I was thinking about just leaving JA.org for a while but figured I'd face my stupidity.
Yeah, sorry about last night. At least I sent a dumb thing here instead of to someone I know more personally. Thanks for the patience and prayers.

to weaken the protestant case you would have to attack elizabeth and find all of her wrongdoings and weaknesses and compare and contrast that with all the positives, wins and areas of superiority spain has over england. similarly attack england's weaknesses and misrepresent where you can by exaggeration in order to show their lack of morals and hypocrisy. attacking henry is a good place to begin.

spain is politically important in understanding certain affairs in the world that effect us even to this day. spain is still important in america today....but little is said of it...because it is a political issue that is never talked about and religion ties into the issue...and how it intersects/conflicts with brittain's political, financial and religious interests in america.
someone needs to make a movie about isabella of spain to balance the issue and offset the false teachings of protestantism..it would also help to portray brittain's falsities and expose their agenda in bashing catholics

I haven't seen the movie...but let us not forget that at the time these events take place...there was a battle for power in the church due to the marriage issues. why should england be consumed by spain just because a man did not ascend the throne in england? there were political motives for resisting a corporate takeover by spain of england through force. all of the problems occured because of the marriage rules back then which all were bound by....these were property rules that attach to WHOM you marry...people in those days were not married for love...they were married for financial gain. these were business deals.
i agree that there is too much catholic bashing in america....it would be helpful if we learned more about spain as part of the european world in our history classes...but i seem to recall that spain is purposely left out of world civilization classes even in high school. our american textbooks intentionally exclude spain...as catholics this is harmful to our appreciation of our faith and way of life. we are a protestant nation...not a catholic one.
because of the language barrier we do not know the spanish side of the story...which is the catholic side. we only know the british side which is protestant and as a language english.
brittain purposely scandalizes and ruins the reputaions of others whom threaten their power..in england....church and state are tied together through the queen...in america we have separation of church and state because of the abuses of british monarchy in religious affairs...
the book the scarelet letter is really about the catholic church in america being persecuted by pilgrims...the scarlett letter was the letter A...we are usually taught that it meant adultery but that was not the issue...it was that she dared to wear a shield on her clothes...the letter A symbolized the HOUSE she was from...pilgrims had a dress code that forbade wearing heraldic symbols of what house you were from. you were only allowed to wear black and white...not anything of color.
the british are intentionally practiced in using the arts and newspapers and books to harass and misrepresent catholics...this was their form of war propaganda in the war against catholics.
it is very important to develop the spanish side of the story in america to level the playing field. there is no excuse for excluding spain from history classes and history textbooks in our education. i could go on and on about all the classic literature that is writing that is in actuality war propaganda against catholics.
as a woman, i am impressed by elizabeth...who was in a precarious position for the times...the whole reason she didn't marry is because it would have been her death sentence. I am equally impressed by isabella, the queen of spain...
all of the problems in the holy roman empire occured because women were ascending to the throne in many kingdoms...(that's why henry killed 6 wives remember?) this was jeopardizing their nations because of ownership rules...elizabeth was smart enough to realize that marriage would be a huge mistake for her and her nation...she should be commended and studied by all women as should isabella of spain. and mary queen of scots...thank god for our lady of guadelupe...without her, none of those women would have been safe.

And by the way, SDG, it seems that you were quoted on their website. And I also listened to the CAL show yesterday, but I was also reading this post and probably didn't pay attention to every moment.

Matheus, yes, I think the CL is right on in that respect. I made the same point in the CALive show yesterday.

I liked the first Elizabeth film. Not that I agreed or that it was not problematic but it was interesting, entertaining, good sets, good costumes, good acting.
Interesting as the director is Indian--I think Hindu.
There was an interesting Catholic point at the end where she is standing by a statue of Mary and is talking to her or about her--and how she is loved by the people--and she becomes like Mary. Certainly sacrilegious but perhaps accurate as to Queen Elizabeth and thought provoking as to the role of Mary (the Theotokos) and Elizabeth's perception.

Dear SDG,
Yes, I agree. I was just pointing to the fact that one of the few secular movie critics who aknowledged the anti-Catholicism in Elizabeth II: The Wrath of Kahn, was also relativizing the anti-Christian elements in the Golden Compass FILM; given that the main point in the Catholic League campaign is the fact that dismissing those elements of the FILM will certainly help to popularize the BOOKS among Christian children.

Sorry. I meant he dismissed the anti-Christian elements as irrelevant to the viewers.

FWIW, Matheus, I think it would be most accurate to say that he dismissed the effect that it would have on children. And, given that he's a Jewish man who read the Narnia stories to his childen, I think he's got a well-thought-out position. He may even be right as regards the Golden Compass FILM. Since the books get more explicit and didactic as they go on, I think that's where the real danger lies.

Do I misunderstand you?

Um, possibly. I was joking.

+J.M.J+
We're all sinners, JR, of one kind or another. How can I think less of a fellow sinner when I sin, too? I'll certainly pray for you and your ex-girlfriend, maybe you can pray for me too sometime. God bless.
In Jesu et Maria,

You mean Pearl Harbor wasn't payback for Hiroshima?
Exactly.
Do I misunderstand you?

I'm reminded of a comedy skit I saw long ago about flying Lufthansa. The flight attendant said: "Ve vill be showing a movie on zis flight: 'Za Longest Day', vit a surprise ending; ve vill run za film in reverse, und vatch za Allies retreat into za sea!"

You mean Pearl Harbor wasn't payback for Hiroshima?
Exactly.

It was like watching a movie about World War II which began with Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the Dresden firebombing, and ended with Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Poland.

You mean Pearl Harbor wasn't payback for Hiroshima?

What really bugged me about the first "Elizabeth" film was the way it completely changed the order of historical events, effectively confusing cause and effect. It was like watching a movie about World War II which began with Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the Dresden firebombing, and ended with Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Poland.

JR,
If I read this right then you're under 50 years old??
Also, I would like to point out I play the violine. It is a little like playing the violin, but as you said slightly more anti-Catholic.
Essau,
I really appreciate you pointing that out. You know your group is outside sympathy range when an outright attack like this with no other purpose than to vilify an entire group is met with ... Ut Unum Sint?
I mean I am grateful the ole chestnuts of the Inquisition, Crusades, and Counter-Reformation were not rolled out, but Ut Unum Sint?
Presumably the reason our troll friend is Protestant, as opposed to Hindu for example, is because he does not want to go to Hell. Does that make him anti-Hindu simply by virtue of the fact he is Protestant?
Follow the logic to its conclusion and, in a PC world, no one should be allowed to believe in any one religion.
Which I would say sums up post-Christian America's malaise perfectly.

"lavatory-alumn"
Come on, Esau. That's not helpful. Much the opposite. I love ya, man, but, you shoot yourself in the foot with stuff like that. Your arguments are generally spot on, but if you wrap them in acidic personal attacks, you do more harm than good. I like peaches, for instance, but not wrapped in poo.
J.R.Stoodley -
I refuse to stop thinking well of you. All the evidence is against it. Also, Jimmy, SDG and all the other prominent personalities in the Catholic Apologetics world would be very uncomfortable, I'm certain, at being seen as "celebrities". Mark Shea talked a little about this recently;
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archiv...
I don't know how to advise you on how much is TOO much drink. If it seems to be a problem, I would back off altogether for a while and pray about it.
"Also the more I drink the more I tend to think I can drink without significant consiquence"
Ah, yes. Well this is absolutely true.
It is a very subjective thing, and also is clarified through experience. It took me a while to settle on a level of drinking that I feel allows me to enjoy the benefits ("to gladden the heart", according to scripture) while avoiding the excess that leads to sin.
What helped me was to remember that I had to make the decision about how much to drink *before* I started drinking, much the same way that people need to think through the temptations to fornication and resolve themselves against it *before* they end up in the back seat with their boy/girlfriend. There is a kind of mental rehearsal involved. You deal with the event in your mind before it happens. You think about what you can say and do to derail the temptation to sin.
It also helps a great deal if the people you drink with hold similar values as far as drink is concerned.
Don't beat yourself up over it. Now, go and have a Tylenol and a glass of vegetable juice.

Hey, JR, that Ocean Grove situation isn't about infighting within the Methodist community, it's about a gay couple off the street seeing this chapel, applying to use it for a civil union commitment ceremony, and being turned down. (Apropos of your point, I guess this places the owners, the OG Camp Meeting Ass'n in the so-called conservative camp). They then got the state civil rights enforcers involved by inventing some crackpot legal theory that this church is a "place of public accommodation" that must be open to all for any use. If they pull this one off, no house of worship in the state will be safe from outsider desecration of what it's congregation considers to be sacred space.

Also I suppose I should ask at this point if anyone has any advice about what divides being affected by alcohol in a non-sinful manner from a venial sin, and what can determine when you have been guilty of the mortal sin of drunkeness vs. the venial sin of drunkeness. I understandad the difference between these is whether you could commit a mortal sin without suficient culpability, but what if you don't happen to commit a mortal sin but are still drunk?
Well, the issue is:
1. if you drink to the partial suspension of reason -- until your understanding of right and wrong is muddled -- you have committed a venial sin by drinking that much.
2. if you drink to the total suspension of reason -- until your understanding of right and wrong is good -- you have committed a mortal sin by drinking that much.
This is even if you don't do anything else sinful while your reason is suspended.