So Thomas a'Becket died all for naught. Shame.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: He is difficult because he has seen something terrible
> On 8/30/2011 5:32 PM, Peter Montgomery wrote:
>> As an Anglo-Papalist, Eliot would have been extremely happy if the
> > Anglican Church reverted to Rome. A century earlier such sentiments
> > would have been deemed nearly treasonous.
> On failing famously to receive his desired annulment from the Pope,
> Henry [VIII] had himself declared Supreme Head of the Church in England
> in February 1531. ... Those who refused to assent to the Royal Supremacy
> were liable to execution for treason ... By the Submission of the
> Clergy, the English clergy subscribed to the proposition that the King
> was, and had always been, the Supreme Head of the Church in England.
> Consequently, in Henry's view, any act of monastic resistance to royal
> authority would not only be treasonable, but also a breach of the
> monastic vow of obedience.
> In April 1539 Parliament passed a new law legalising acts of voluntary
> surrender, but by then the vast majority of monasteries in England,
> Ireland and Wales had already been dissolved. Some resisted, and that
> autumn the abbots of Colchester, Glastonbury, and Reading were hanged,
> drawn and quartered for treason.