tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post4871902835742400323..comments2024-03-29T18:49:49.469+11:00Comments on loon pond: In which the angelic Shanners sparkles with 'Romanes eunt domus' silliness ...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-10536808683446856632018-04-16T08:33:56.218+10:002018-04-16T08:33:56.218+10:00Yes, though establishing the Common Law - in conju...Yes, though establishing the Common Law - in conjunction with the 'itinerant magistracy' - is commonly credited to Henry II who was Norman rather than Anglo-Saxon. Though the Normans were originally Vikings, and a lot of Viking culture had 'invaded' Britain, I suppose. And the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were sort of Germanic-Scandinavian anyway.<br /><br />As I vaguely remember it, 'England' was a well organised, well ordered kingdom at the time of Guillaume's invasion and was considered a very desirable conquest.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-79875729298739901942018-04-16T00:40:48.589+10:002018-04-16T00:40:48.589+10:00Of course, Angela thinks the legal code of the pag...Of course, Angela thinks the legal code of the pagan Anglo-Saxons had fuck-all to do with the development of British law especially of the precedent- and judicial-based common law, its most distinguishing feature. <br /><br />The first "Judeo-Christian" laws in England were solely concerned with the protection of church property, privileging it above royal property (penalties for theft from the church were 33% higher than from the crown).FrankDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-84260097813981510312018-04-14T23:23:43.153+10:002018-04-14T23:23:43.153+10:00Well that neatly covers about a millenium or so of...Well that neatly covers about a millenium or so of history, DW.<br /><br />And provides a useful life-rule: never stand between a ruthless, powerful man (especially if his name is Henry Tudor) and what he thinks he has a divine right to take - unless you're prepared to pay the ultimate price, anyway.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-17987549028219134212018-04-14T19:16:38.264+10:002018-04-14T19:16:38.264+10:00Hi GB,
When you have a set of people who all beli...Hi GB,<br /><br />When you have a set of people who all believe they were ‘anointed by God’, don’t be surprised that there are issues about supremacy.<br /><br />Back around 500 AD the (Holy) Roman Empire is governed by the Emperor and the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. <br /><br />By 1000 AD, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem have all fallen to Islam and the empire is neither ‘Holy, Roman or an Empire’.<br /><br />The Bishop of Rome believes he has supremacy as he is the spiritual descendent of the first Bishop of Rome, Peter. The Patriarch of Constantinople believes he has supremacy as he is the spiritual leader of Constantine’s capital. <br /><br />The Emperor is a Germanic warlord who whilst professing his belief in Christianity and believing he was chosen by God, wants to be able to pick his own Bishops and doesn’t want religious tithes flowing out of his lands to enrich Rome.<br /><br />The next 500 years of Medieval European history is a series of literal battles between Emperors, Kings, Princes and Popes (sometimes several Popes at the same time) about who is in control. <br /><br />Henry VIII is unusual in that not only did he cast off the yoke of Rome, that the Church of England he created remained independent. It’s probably nothing Henry ever planned (he just wanted a male heir and considering the constant warfare of the 100 Years War preceding the Tudors that wasn’t unsurprising).<br /><br />What allowed the Church of England to remain independent was of course the Protestant Reformation and probably geography. The UK is at the edge and surrounded by water.<br /><br />So More getting the chop was simply somebody getting in the way of a powerful man who wasn’t getting what he wanted and was quite happy to remove that impediment.<br /><br />Fortunately in these enlightened times nothing like that could occur.<br /><br />DW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-32280302677483046842018-04-14T16:08:34.238+10:002018-04-14T16:08:34.238+10:00An interesting point: is the Church of England sup...An interesting point: is the Church of England superior to, subordinate to, or equal to but different from, the Church of Rome ?<br /><br />Henry VIII always revered his title of Fidei defensor as bestowed by Pope Leo X in 1521. So Henry VIII, as we know, was never a protestant (with or without a capital 'p').<br /><br />So, was Henry justified in bumping off the papist Thomas More for being unable to grasp the difference between a Church and a Religion ?GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-30616533443380791012018-04-14T15:47:43.792+10:002018-04-14T15:47:43.792+10:00Hi Dorothy,
“Angela Shanahan was an original conv...Hi Dorothy,<br /><br />“Angela Shanahan was an original convener of the Thomas More Forum on faith and public life in Canberra.”<br /><br />As an admirer of Thomas More it’s passing strange that Shanners should be giving succour to the Anglicans. <br /><br />I thought More got the chop for denying that the King was the legitimate head of the Church of England and instead maintained Papal Supremacy.<br /><br />DiddyWroteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-19420135208389333072018-04-14T14:58:09.012+10:002018-04-14T14:58:09.012+10:00Much as it pains me to think so, Merc, but the Sha...Much as it pains me to think so, Merc, but the Shanners may just have a point there. Only with (a surplus in) what you reap will you have enough left over to sow again for the next season. So: as ye reap so ye will sow and then reap.<br /><br />But then again, she is very easily confused.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-60807040140029163192018-04-14T14:53:05.032+10:002018-04-14T14:53:05.032+10:00Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour...<i>Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour of the god Saturn, held on 17 December...</i><br /><br />Ah, but when did Saturnalia really start to bloom ? For long, I had the (mis)understanding that Saturnalia was extended from 1 day to several after Rome disastrously lost the battle of Cannae (216BCE) as a way of repairing public morale. And so it may be, but Wikipedia has a slightly different take: <br /><br /><i>Saturnalia underwent a major reform in 217 BC, after the Battle of Lake Trasimene, when the Romans suffered one of their most crushing defeats by Carthage during the Second Punic War. Until that time, they had celebrated the holiday according to Roman custom (more Romano). It was after a consultation of the Sibylline books that they adopted "Greek rite", introducing sacrifices carried out in the Greek manner, the public banquet, and the continual shouts of io Saturnalia that became characteristic of the celebration.<br /><br />It was not unusual for the Romans to offer cult (cultus) to the deities of other nations in the hope of redirecting their favor (see evocatio), and the Second Punic War in particular created pressures on Roman society that led to a number of religious innovations and reforms.</i><br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia#Historical_context<br /><br />So it goes. And, as with M. Folau, the Romans were not remiss in their public declarations of religious belief: yo Saturn, indeed.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-35765647831951743452018-04-14T13:41:02.206+10:002018-04-14T13:41:02.206+10:00"What you reap, so shall you sow" - Shan..."What you reap, so shall you sow" - Shanners is getting her reaps and sows confused. Just like everything else.Mercurialnoreply@blogger.com