So Thomas a'Becket died all for naught. Shame. Cheers, Peter ----- 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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries > > 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.