Talk:Thomas Cranmer/Archive 1

Restore

I just wanted to add that I am not signed in, but I did restore the article from what it was previously. It had a whole lot of odd stuff at the beginning.

--69.230.120.101 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Thomas More Fan

3 Martyrs

If Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley (martyr) and Hugh Latimer were burnt to death together, how come the date of death are different ? I'm very confused .... -- PFHLai 18:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Cranmer was not martyred with Latimer and Ridley. The latter two died in 1555. Cranmer was a prisoner and witnessed those martyrdoms. Ridley's was particularly gruesome. He took over an hour to die, and shortly after he stopped breathing, his torso swung around the stake, revealing that his legs had burned completely to char. Although Cranmer witnessed these martyrdoms, he still fearlessly went to the stake in 1556, dying far more virtuously than he lived.

I think describing Edward's upbringing as "extreme" protestant is probably justified - admittedly, it's my research project, but look at e.g. Latimer and Ridley's sermons at St Pauls' Cross.... Hackloon 02:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "extreme" because I don't know what "extreme" means in this situation. Obviously the church in Edward's reign moved towards a more Protestant position than Henry, Mary or perhaps even Elizabeth's reigns but just how Protestant was he personally and how Protestant were his spiritual and temporal advisers? Dabbler 10:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Extreme" is improper. Part of the problem with Cranmer's reforms in the eyes of urban Protestants were the slow pace. There were basically no radical Protestants teaching Edward VI or in the Privy Council ruling England while he was King, and, as far as the populace was concerned, although certain things were eventually banned, there was toleration and (unlike Mary 1 of England, who had so many thinkers killed in her counter-reformation). JoshNarins 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranmer was justffied in his reconsiliatin of his oath to Mary because he lied in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus57 (talk • contribs)

Founder or Cofounder of Anglican Theological Thought?

To add some context for the discussion, let's bring some things together.

From Richard Hooker--

Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 1600-11-03) was an influential Anglican theologian. He is arguably the co-founder (with Thomas Cranmer) of Anglican theological thought.

When I edited Cranmer article, I added the following sentence, based in-part that (to over-simplify) Cranmer is best remembered for the BCP and Hooker for the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity--

The foundation laid by Cranmer and Richard Hooker is considered to be the foundation for Anglicanism.

Dabbler changed this to--

The foundation laid by Cranmer and developed later by theologian Richard Hooker is considered to be the basis for Anglicanism.

Is Hooker fundamental to Anglican theological thought? Hooker did define the concept of "scripture, Tradition, and reason," which has become the Anglican watchword, in the Laws of Eccliastical Polity (along with a wonder discussion of discerning God from nature). To remove a reference that places Hooker's work among the theological foundation because it is "disputable and extraneous" is not looking at the entire historical record. Since Hooker did come after Cranmer, Dabbler wasn't wrong to change it to "developed later" (although I think a bit too fussy; to each their own). As a relative newby in editing around here, I may not be getting all the traditional protocol right. But, I am going to be bold and return Dabbler's text to the article. If there is a better way to handle a disagreement like this, I would appreciate a friendly note on the better way to do it. --Bob 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in editing, I added the words "by many" to the sentence to allow for a difference in thought. So it now reads, "The foundation laid by Cranmer and developed later by theologian Richard Hooker is considered by many to be the basis for Anglicanism." --Bob 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the Talk page because that is where new stuff usually goes. Discussion on the Talk page is the best way to handle disagreements about the article, but being bold but not too bold by restoring my compromise, rather than insisting on your original form of words, is a good start. For one thing I am unlikely to oppose it! We must remember the article is about Cranmer and his influence, not Anglican thought or thehistory of the Church of England, they have their own articles. So a claim that Cranmer is the one and only font of Anglican theology could be tempered by mentioning Hooker but we should ensure that people don't get the idea that Cranmer and Hooker were collaborating in founding the Church of England. Hope this helps. Dabbler 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was I who removed the reference to Hooker. I did so because while Cranmer's contribution to Anglican liturgy is huge and indisputable, he did not provide us with a defence of Anglicanism - partly because Anglicanism is in fact a later notion - post 1662. Hooker's contribution was of a different order. To suggest that these two founded Anglicanism is to grossly oversimplify. Other names come to mind: Clarendon, Wesley, Newman. It is much to much a POV statement. When writing about Cranmer as a politician, archbishop and liturgist we are on solid ground. At a time when it is less and less clear what Anglicanism is or whether it is a description of more than a short period in the life of the English church, I would have thought it is better left out. Roger Arguile 15.28 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Anglicanism, as a developed entity separate from Roman Catholicism, is not an idea that sprung simply from Cranmer's work. After all, he was appointed ABC by a king who was Defender of the (Roman) Faith. Still, if 'lex orandi, lex credindi' (did I get the Latin right?) holds any validity, then Cranmer's liturgical work is foundational for the later development of Anglicanism. It is in worship that we, the people, develop our theology. Cranmer's contribution to liturgy is the very reason why I thought it important to bring the idea from the Hooker article over that Cranmer helped to lay the foundation. The language of worship guides our theology.

There is also no doubt that there were others that developed Anglican thought later besides Hooker. (Wesley might be pushing it a bit far, I add with a wide smile on my face and tongue in cheek.) Still, I see that later theologians filling in and developing Hooker's thoughts on the issue. For example, is it "scripture, Tradition, and reason," or "scripture, Tradition, reason, and inspiration/revelation"? So, rather than the foundation, people like Newman helped with the infrastructure above the foundation.

We could turn what is supposed to be a encyclopedia article into a commentary on the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity and the (choose your year) BCP. It isn't meet and right so to add everything. Lord have mercy upon us! So, I see this more as a discussion on where to draw the line, while encouraging people to look beyond a single article.

(By the way, why does the Anglicanism template only list Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Hooker under people? Where is Elizabeth I, Claredon, Newman--and maybe Wesley? You might think only those three developed Anglicanism. [still smiling widely])--Bob 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism Template

You can edit the template in the same way as an article go to Template:anglicanism and Be Bold! Dabbler 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Account of his death

Interesting article, thank you. Now I have no desire to demean Cranmer, who undoubtedly died bravely, but is it worth noting that Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a not an eye-witness account, but rather a collection of biographies used for propaganda purposes? Foxe was a zealous anti-Catholic, and his 1563 work is based on a 1549 history of the world by another controversialist, Thomas Cooper. So perhaps more research needs to be done concerning the hand in the fire anecdote.--Gazzster 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fair point, but I think that I am inclined to leave it in. MacCulloch (in his Thomas Cranmer) accepts the story as part of his death, mainly because of the witness testimony of "J.A.", an unknown Catholic witness to the events, who includes the story. Also, much of the account of the Marian years in Foxe was subjected to close scrutiny by the Catholic Nicholas Harpsfield, who drew on many contemporary witness reports. That Harpsfield doesn't challenge the account substantially seems to me to be another tacit approval of it as broadly true. While Foxe was undoubtedly a "zealous anti-Catholic", he was also a fine historian of his period - using extensive archival research and collecting eye-witness statements. Hackloon 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Great scholarship there. Cheers, --Gazzster 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Diarmid MacCullough's acount is in his book "Thomas Cranmer", Diarmid McCullough Chapter 13 "Condemned", Yale University Press, 1996 ISBN 0-300-07448-4. Dabbler 11:56, 1 September 2006 (

Actually Foxe was not a "fine historian". He was a propagandist. It is unfortunate that his work is used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.49.31 (talk • contribs)

Fictional Portrayals

Would someone like to mention his portrayal in the first installment of the BBC series, Elizabeth R? He's seen tending to Edward, then confronting his Catholic counter-part in the Tower of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.124.173 (talk • contribs)

Recognition?

Which date is correct; who celebrates the martyrs on which dates; can the details be cited and the article clarified? Right now it says that he is celebrated on this date, but also says he is celebrated with the other Oxford Martyrs in October. I don't know which is right, only that there is an inconsistency.--Brad Patrick 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that although the Church of England officially commemorates Cranmer today, on the anniversary of his death, he may be conflated with Latimer and Ridley in general memorial ceremonies. Dabbler 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

25 June 2007 Changes

I put up cited material on the 10 Articles and I removed this (and why): "Under Henry, Cranmer was able to push through the reforms that led gradually to the reform of the Church of England." This sentence is redundant (reforms/reform) It also is a leap to suggest 1. That Cranmer "pushed" anything through against, over or under King Henry. and a giant leap to suggest 2. that the "reforms" such as they were under Henry VIII "led to the reform of the Church of England"

If either of these is more than speculation, please cite.

Also down (and why): This included writing the 10 Articles, which stated the reforms but also showed a politeness that Cranmer possessed because he didn't want to offend anyone.

Raw speculation. This suggests Cranmer's motivations, it does not state them. If this was so, please, cite it.

Also down (and why): In 1538, he condemned the views of John Lambert when he denied transubstantiation. Lambert was burned at the stake, but Cranmer later came to adopt his views.

This is not correct as such. It was Henry who demanded inforcement on transubstantiation at this point. 1538 was such a complicated year. Much more needs to be added here about this episode.

Also down (and why): "Cranmer also opposed Henry VIII's 6 Articles, which reaffirmed clerical celibacy." SECisek 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I now have a cite for the six articles and I will correct it soon.

Done, cited almost everything and the article touches every major point that it should. What else needs to be done to make this GA? -- SECisek 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Cranmer's Box

I've just noticed no mention of the 'urban legend' of Mrs Cranmer's box: i.e. Thomas Cranmer transported his wife about in a box. According to Diarmaid MacCulloch:"And so in later times, about 58 years later, Roman Catholics of course hated Cranmer, made up this story that he used to carry Mrs Cranmer around in a box". It is a good story. Here is a reference to the story [1] in 'Six Makers of English Religion, 1500-1700' By Ernest Gordon Rupp. 1974.Ayer Publishing.125 pages ISBN 0518101592, if it is thought suitable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. -- SECisek 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII vs. Henry

Hi! I'm with the League of Copyeditors and thought I'd follow up on your request for a copyedit. However, I have a question from the lead section: is it permissible, after referring to Henry VIII (with ordinal/roman numeral) first, then to refer to him as "Henry" in subsequent paragraphs of the same section? My Chicago MOS (my manual of choice) does not have a ruling, but my feeling is that, for clarity, the ordinal should be included with each reference. Thoughts? Galena11 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it. I Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change. Does it make sense? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

British usage (and this is a British article) is normally to use only the name and not the ordinal after the first time the name is quoted in full so King Henry VIII was King of England. Henry also ruled over Wales. One would normally use the ordinal, though for variety you might use his title "the king", instead of using his name where it was clear which king was being referred to. Dabbler 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll stick to this convention throughout the edit. Thanks! Galena11 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I was fixing some of your points and had an edit conflict. Let me know when you are finished and thank you for your time. -- SECisek 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm done for today (through Section 1). Thanks! Galena11 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's notes in hidden comments

Hi there! I wanted to explain that approach when copyediting to not delete or add anything without first asking for clarification from you, the subject matter experts. The easiest way for me to do that is by inserting hidden comments preceded by COPYEDITOR'S NOTE at the point within the text that is unclear, redundant, or otherwise poses a problem. Feel free to post a reply to any comment by inserting a line (|) after my comment and typing REPLY or RESPONSE and your answer, and I'll insert the fix. Or, add or remove text to fix the issue and then delete the comment. Thanks! Galena11 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Copyedit is complete. Please see hidden comments preceded by COPYEDITOR'S NOTES for suggested heading changes and questions/issues. Let me know if you need further assistance; otherwise, I will submit this for a final proofread from a League member. Thanks! Galena11 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I have added to or amended some of these notes - please look for them in the article and clarify the text. Thanks! Cricketgirl 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few statements require a citation before I can pass this for GA status, because they have the potential to be challenged:

1. "Henry resolved to charge the whole English clergy with praemunire (which, according to the 1392 Statute of Praemunire, forbade obedience to the authority of foreign rulers) to secure their agreement to his annulment. " (Failure to secure Henry VIII's annulment) The stuff in the brackets doesn't need to be cited (since people can just click on the link if they want to know) but, the fact that he used it does. Removed. Of questionable relevance to Cranmer.
2. "On 23 May 1533, Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon void. On 25 May 1533 – two days later – the secret marriage to Anne Boleyn was declared lawful. Henry and Cranmer had successfully negotiated the impossible in five months."
3. "The pope responded to the marriage by excommunicating both Henry and Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. On 7 September 1533, the new queen gave birth to Henry's second daughter Princess Elizabeth; Cranmer was made her godfather."
4. "Cranmer benefited by receiving various former church properties, such as the Cluniac nunnery at Arthington." Reworked to something verifiable.
5. The second paragraph under Royal marriages and executions
6. "He ordered the guards to remove any objects that she may use to commit suicide. Catherine was executed on 13 February, 1542." (Royal marriage and executions)
7. "Use of the Prayer Book was enforced by an Act of Uniformity 1549 but it served only to antagonise Protestants and Roman Catholics in the realm. Outside of bloody reprisals in Cornwall, the Duke of Somerset and Cranmer did not encourage persecution. They refrained from it, as they feared invasion by Europe's powerful Catholic monarchs, especially Emperor Charles V." (Book of Common Prayer)
8. "A week before Cranmer's own burning, Bishops Ridley and Latimer were burnt at the stake on 16 October 1555 and Cranmer had been forced to watch the atrocity from a gatehouse. These three Oxford martyrdoms are commemorated by the Victorian Martyrs' Memorial." (Recognition and legacy) With added detail.
9. "Cranmer is commemorated by the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on 21 March. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America commemorates him with the other Oxford martyrs on 16 October." (Recognition and legacy)

On the opposite side of the coin, "Cranmer was a great plagiarist; even the opening of Preface (quoted above) was borrowed." (Book of Common Prayer) has the same citation twice. Did you mean to use one of those citations for the paragraph above, where you quote the preface?

Again, as with the other article, putting the citation templates horizontally instead of vertically would be helpful to the page's editors, but is not a mandatory change for GA status. Otherwise, the article looks great! To allow for these minor changes, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Another excellent job! Cheers, CP 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I will horiz. the cites later! -- SECisek 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, another job well done! I'll be passing it right away! If you're thinking of moving this up to A/FA, my suggestions to start with would be to do the horizontal cites and cite a few small, but unlikely to be challenged, statements in the article. As it stands, however, it's definitely a good article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

I have taken a look at the criticisms presented in the first FAC attempt and I would like to make a second attempt. Right now, I am gathering some sources and I just want to let other editors know that I will be restructuring and expanding this article for the next few months. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be working with you. This was one of, if not the, first GA article I edited and it show at points. Anybody else care to join us? -- SECisek (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Count me in - I'm a Reformation History Doctoral student, so might be of some help! Hackloon (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise this, but the footnotes used named refs. That means that all content within the refs, i.e. page numbers, are never displayed. In order to reveal the page numbers, regular non-named refs should be used. In order to keep the footnotes short, I will use Harvard referencing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Harvard referencing is the way to go. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came around to this position while working on Anne Bolyne. Agreed. -- Secisek (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apocryphal story

Is there no room for an apocryphal story: a bit of silliness albeit historically sourced silliness.

Mrs. Cranmer's box is a ribald reference to the hidden existence of Cranmer's second wife, Margaret, and her means of concealment. The story is more apocryphal than historical and describes her travelling method between Cranmer's houses. Diarmaid MacCulloch traces one branch of this particular legend to a Roman Catholic source some 58 years later, which made up the story as an odd attack against Cranmer. Another branch appears to have originated at a fire at Canterbury where Cranmer showed excess concern for crates of books, so much so that on-lookers thought his wife must be in one. The tale arose that:

“ He kept his woman very close, and sometimes carried her about with him in a great chest full of holes, that his pretty nobsey might take breath at. ”

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is already pretty long and I think it may become longer. MacCulloch has a lot of interesting anecdotes on Cranmer, but how do we select which ones to include? In any case, anecdotes will not help and most likely hinder in the FA drive. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not often contradict the editor who was once accused of being my sock puppet, but I am going to go with RelHistBuff here. It is not sort of thing I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. -- Secisek (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we select which anecdotes to include? Well, the silliest :-) But now that it is no longer 1 April, I'm disappointed but I understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere within all those IP packets, I hear the echo of a "Gotcha..." :-D --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, well done! -- Secisek (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enthroned

The info box now says Cranmer was made Archbishop on 3 December 1533, which contradicts the article. It is custom to date the reign of a prelate from the day of their consecration, not their election. This is important because some elected bishops are never consecrated and hence never serve. I know it is cited by McCullough, I don't if this is a misunderstanding on the part of our editor, or one of the rare but not unheard of, errors on the part of McCullough. I'll let RHB rule on this. -- Secisek (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will raise it here as question. Ridley and MacCulloch both say he was enthroned on 3 December in Canterbury Cathedral. But they both say he was consecrated on 30 March in St Stephen's Chapel. He took his consecration oath at that time. Clearly two different events, two different dates. Cranmer definitely acted as archbishop starting from 30 March. But the infobox says "Enthroned" for the began parameter, so which date should apply? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an expert on the subject here and I will point her here to this question. -- Secisek (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enthronement and consecration are two different things. Enthronement is the ceremonial first sitting of the bishop in his cathedra, or bishop's chair in the cathedral. Consecration is ritual performed by other bishops or an archbishop that makes a bishop a bishop. Enthronement is not so important to a bishop as the consecration. As far as Cranmer goes, he was elected in 1532, provided to the see (i. e. the pope said "hey, you can't elect him, it's my right to name him to the office, so here, I name him to the office") on 21 February 1533, consecrated on 30 March 1522, and given the temporalities of the see on 19 April 1533. That's from this book: Fryde, E. B. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology (Third Edition, revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) page 234. You can double check it online with Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 4: Monastic cathedrals (southern province) which is from 1963 so it's a bit out of date compared to the Handbook. Personally, the infobox should give the consecration date, not the enthronement date. (This just came up with William of York, in fact.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There you have it, thank you! -- Secisek (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Ealdgyth. I thought it should be 30 March as well. Could I ask you to change the text for the {{began}} parameter from "Enthroned" to "Consecrated" in Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury? I would do it myself, but someone who is watching the template page kind of brushed me off when I asked a question on the template talk page. He/she might think I am a newbie messing around with the template. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, keep the {{began}} parameter (as past editors on other articles probably used the enthronement date) and add another one, {{consecrated}} for example. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Template:Infobox Archbishop has been recently created by the template guardian who brushed me off. He/she uses {{consecrated}} and instead of {{began}}, uses {{enthroned}} instead. Perhaps Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury should be the same? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is where I yelp for Secisek, who usually is very good about messing with templates for me! Help! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{consecration}} parameter, but I didn't touch {{began}}. So you can add that now to your infoboxes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Several people have been messing with the bishop-related templates as of late. I was going to wait until they restabilized and then do some long-desired tinkering myself. I have no idea who that editor was who blew you off. Do we need anything else done to it? -- Secisek (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now for the case of Cranmer. You may want to fix the parameter naming. The {{began}} parameter is currently associated to "Enthroned", but perhaps a parameter name of {{enthronement}} is better and {{began}} could be deprecated. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody recently changed the field name from "Began" to "Enthroned" as they no doubt thought it sounded more impressive, however it is incorrect as the dates that we have been using are almost always that of the consecration. This will need to be fixed. -- Secisek (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cranmer in Nuremburg

MacCulloch and Ridley had even stronger statements about the Nuremburg Lutheran influence on Cranmer. Ridley was the most explicit when he said, "It was almost certainly at Nuremberg that he took at least the first steps towards becoming a Lutheran...He was certainly converted to the Lutheran view as regards the celibacy of the clergy". The sentence currently in the article is in fact the mildest form (taken from Hall) because he added the clause "however moderately". There are probably other ways to state this, but I don't think it is a debatable point. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with both works and several others that make this case as well. It is synthesis, albiet published synthesis, but it remains synthesis none the less. Cranmer was clear in his opposition to celebicy long before he went to the Continent and came into direct contact with Lutheran ideas. He was maried as a seminarian and to call his second marriage a "step toward Lutheran principals" is a reach on the part of scholars when they have no surviving works of Cranmer saying as much.

I have heard it argued that Cranmer had always opposed clerical celibacy because it was not based in scripture and it was not practiced in the same form in the Eastern Churches. To state that the second marriage he conducted after he was certain of a life in the Church was somehow a definitive theological step is to look for something that isn't there and discount his first marriage in seminary. Even if many modern scholars think it was, that doesn't mean wiki should endorse their unqualified opinions as fact. We need to work on this passage still.

I think it is great that this is (thus far) the only contested change from the GA version of the article. -- Secisek (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the sources, the main difference between his first and second marriage was that he had taken holy orders. So the risks involved in the second marriage was far greater and is a real demonstration against priestly celibacy. He could have taken her as his mistress as many priests did at the time (and preserve his "celibacy" state), but he didn't. I don't think the scholars are pushing this too much and I don't think we can second-guess the scholars otherwise we are putting in our opinion. If there is modern scholarship that states something to the contrary, then it can be included and cited. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion is exactly what I am trying to avoid seeing in the article. Cranmer kept his second marriage among the greatest of secrets for decades - what kind of "real demonstration against priestly celibacy" was he making? Scholars really want to find something they can point to because in his early life, there is not much there. The article even acknowledges that not much can be determined about his early opinions. The article right now is reaching and I would like to see it remain qualified as opinion rather than stated as fact, because it isn't. Opinion is indeed what I would like to see us avoid. -- Secisek (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Thank you. -- Secisek (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Merle d'Aubigné

I removed the Merle d'Aubigné reference because it is mid-19th century. This source will come under severe criticism in FAC. There is no indication of the Greek church anecdote in modern sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The motivations of Cranmer's opponents are crucial to any understanding of the collapse of the Lutheran position in 1538 and the publication of the Six Articles that followed. These bishops had been quite content to break with Rome, Fischer was the only bishop who refused, yet a hard core of them refused to give way to the Lutherans. This citation is not from some Victorian "Little lives of the Archbishops" with cute-sy Cruikshank illustrations. The work of Jean-Henri Merle d'Aubigne is worthy of an article in its right. According to Brittanica he "he revitalized Protestant church historical scholarship and assembled more source documents than any other historian up to his time." This is one of the most important works ever written on the subject and the fact that it is still in print should speak of its importance. If we have to quote him directly to get the facts into the article, we will. I'll see if I can rework it a manner that will be passable. The scheme for union with the Orthodox gets very little attention from modern scholars, who seem to favor one of two narratives:

1. The reformation in England was inevidible and the conservatives were a rear gaurd fighting a retreat for Rome. or
2. The reformation in England did not have to happen and it was only the veniality and weakness of the English bishops that was to blame for the break, only St John Fischer...

The scheme of union does not fit neatly into these packages, but it is discussed at length in one of the most important books ever written on the subject and it merits a mention here. I'll see what I can come up with. -- Secisek (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have several Merle d'Aubigné books myself, but historians do not accept them as reliable. There is no doubt that he was a great scholar in the 19th century, but modern methods and new primary sources now make his books outdated. Several reviewers have pointed this out in many FAC nominations including Ealdgyth‎, Awadewit, and Qp10qp and in fact the use of unreliable sources is what killed the previous FAC drive. I will ask them to comment here. I would recommend that you find a modern source to support the statement and avoid using Merle d'Aubigné. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to go to the accountant this morning to deal with taxes (boo, hiss IRS) so all i had time to do was print out the ODNB biography on him. That'll be a good overview of what is currently considered important on him. If anyone wants a copy, I can send you a link to it that will work for 5 days. Just drop me an email, my email is enabled. I'll read the article while I wait on the accountant. Whee. I do have to say that if the Merle book is a reprint, it needs to be said in the bibliographical entry that it is a reprint of an earlier work, and a date given there. In general, I am a bit leary of older works, mainly because they are often out of date with current scholarship. With a subject like this, not only do we need to be looking at books, you need to be looking at historical journals and theological journals for the latest word on things. I'll try to look at JSTOR when I get home this afternoon. I'm sure i'll be in a pissy mood, I hate having to move to a state with a state income tax. It always makes me cranky after almost twenty years in Texas! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using sources from the 19th century is fraught with peril. As RelHistBuff rightly points out, 19th-century historians used different methods than are now accepted as legitimate. Articles should be sourced to the highest-quality research - the most up-to-date and reliable sources. In the 19th century, the work of historians did not undergo the rigorous peer review and fact-checking that is the basis of Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I would also like to point out that Britannica's own definition restricts d'Aubigne's importance to his own time: "he revitalized Protestant church historical scholarship and assembled more source documents than any other historian up to his time" (emphasis added).

RelHistBuff, you write that "historians do not accept [d'Aubigne's books] as reliable". Your case would be strengthened if you had quotations stating this. These are the most difficult kinds of quotations to find, but if you had them, they might help explain the specific problems with d'Aubigne's work. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any quotes, but I agree that would strengthen the case. I just meant to say exactly what you had stated. Just the fact that Merle d'Aubigné's books are examples of mid-19th century scholarship, they are now unreliable. In fact, one can easily see problems just by reading them and comparing them with recent scholarship. One Merle d'Aubigné book that I have is on Zwingli and when I compare them with the modern books, it was almost like reading about two different persons! --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RelHistBuff has asked me to comment, and I have to say that d'Aubigné is not listed in any of the bibliographies I have just consulted in works on Cranmer and the English Reformation. On the other hand, that isn't to say there isn't a grain of truth in the information itself. Both Duffy (401) and MacCulloch (219–20) mention this, though somewhat in passing. Certainly it seems that Tunstall and Stokesley discussed the Greek Orthodox liturgy with their colleagues, looking for possible evidence of early Christian practice. I don't think we have clear evidence, however, that this was a key plank in the English discussions with the Lutheran negotiators. The closest mention seems to be in Henry VIII's dismissal of Lutheran eucharistic theory, where he said that he had learned about this "from those worthy of credit, who themselves have been present at Greek services". But the hint of Tunstall's responsibility for that line seems to derive from a later and slightly vague reminiscence from Richard Sampson—the sort of evidence which, though it shouldn't be dismissed, must be reported with caution. qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did see that discussion on orthodox liturgy in MacCulloch, but he didn't mention that the conservatives bishops were seeking an union with the Greek church which is quite a provocative statement! Anyway, if there is a good source that could support that statement, then I have no problems with it. But Merle d'Aubigné is, I believe, insufficient. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been told about a possible recent source on this subject that I am in the process of trying to locate. My hope is it will support the Merle d'Aubigné material so an historical quote will become uneeded. I am uncertain of its content, but will report my findings if and when I obtain it.

Overall, really great work thus far, though. Apart from the Greeks, there have been no major changes, additions, or subtrations from the GA text, just some really great prose tweaks, colourful fleshing-out of the subjects, and improved citations that I was too lazy to go back to the library for. A barnstart effort in the making. -- Secisek (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some possible sources

While poking around Google scholar, I hit these. don't know how useful they might be:

• Article from 2000
• Review of McCollough's book
• Article from Journal of Ecclesiastical History
• Article about Cranmer's influence on clerical education

Hope this helps a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Children of Cranmer

According to the cited sources, the children died without issue. If a change is to be made based on new information, then please do not simply change the text as that would wrongly attribute a contradicting statement to the sources. Rather, write a new separate sentence and cite the new source. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Congrats. A triumph for everyone who ever edited this article. Esp. Relhistbuf! -- Secisek (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to decide which 16th century bishop or archbishop to tackle next. Parker, Hooker, Latimer, Hooper, Grindal, Ridley,... --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Archbishop Cranmer is a Saint of the Lutheran Church, feast day 21st of March - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_Saints_(Lutheran) Kosh5 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations from Foxe

I prefer Foxe's original picture over Kronheim's 19th century one. The main reason is that the picture is better-known as it has been included in various major scholarly books (MacCulloch, Ridley, Loades, etc.). I have never seen Kronheim's version until now. Also Foxe's image is contemporary or near contemporary. Another image could be added, but is there a need to have two illustrations of the same event? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The one from the 16th century copy is very low res, poorly scanned,a nd barely visible at thumbnail size. The new one clearly illustrated the burning itself. I had no expectation that providing a new illustration that clearly illustrates events in the article would prove controversial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not controversial, just to discuss. In fact, at first I replaced the original Foxe image with the 19th century one, so that there is only one image. But then I got second thoughts because the original is so well-known and appears in so many books. It is even used as the cover for a book by Loades. I enlarged the image, but if you prefer Kronheim's, then go ahead and change it to that one. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The controversy, such as it is, is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kronheim's Illustrations to Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I'd say keep the woodcut, even if the image quality is lower. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both are useful, since they show different things. One's clearer at thumbnail (and, well, full size too, given the crappy quality of the other) resolution, the other's a bit more famous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They show the same event though. I think it would be better to get a higher resolution picture of the original woodcut; contemporary pictures are the best. Taking a look at Gaspard de Coligny, I would say the Vasari is much more preferable to the 19th century picture (the Kronheim is almost cartoonish in comparison). --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Vasari has real size issues, and Gaspard is not the main focus, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two pictures of the same event does not add value. The original John Foxe illustration is sufficient. If one believes the quality of the scan is not good enough, then one should look for another scan of better quality rather than adding another picture. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Saint or Not?

I added some information about his alleged sainthood, based in the fact that he appears in the Category of Anglican saints, but it was deleted. So, I would like to ask, he also should be deleted from that category? I wonder if that category should even exist, since the notion of a saint for the Anglican Church is rather different from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.81.193.222.128 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted that because he has not be canonised by the Anglican church, the Church of England and other Anglican churches commemorate Cranmer on his death day but do not consider him to be a saint in the same way that the Roman Catholic church considers people to be saints. Basically everyone who is a committed Christian witness is considered a saint but they are not given the title Saint. Only one person has been canonised by the Church of England, Saint Charles the Martyr, better known as King Charles I. Dabbler (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I question if the title martyr should be used. I do not know of any official recognition of him being a martyr and many would object to such a title for him. MB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.30.149 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am curious what authorities you would accept for "official recognition" as a martyr. How about the Church of England? See List of Holy days in the Church of England Dabbler (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of the term martyr is not unusual (our own definition is simply "somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief, usually religious"). More importantly, the term is supported by the secondary sources, i.e., historians. MacCulloch, Loades, Heinze, etc., refer to Cranmer as a martyr. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Idiomatic English

(The following was moved from User talk:RelHistBuff. —Srnec (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

"Cranmer was tried for treason and heresy when Roman Catholic monarch Mary I came to the throne" is less idiomatic than "Cranmer was tried for treason and heresy when the Roman Catholic Mary I came to the throne". The word "monarch" is of no use when we know that she was a queen. The absence of a definite article is journalese. "Cranmer was tried for treason and heresy when Mary I, a Roman Catholic, came to the throne" would work as well. Don't think the facts are in dispute, or the characterisation, it is only the diction. —Srnec (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ignore the idiot on sinus pills who pushed the wrong button please!) Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Definite article with separated element now in. @Ealdgyth: Hope you feel better soon. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to identify her as a monarch because (i) she has an ordinal attached to her name, which is enough for most people, and (ii) the sentence says she "came to the throne", which means she was a monarch. We cannot say she was "the Romanc Catholic monarch" and then add her name in parentheses because England has had many Roman Catholic monarchs. She was a Roman Catholic, which is the relevant point, hence the current wording. —Srnec (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "monarch" is pointless when we know she was a queen. The word "queen" is pointless when she has an ordinal number and the sentence says she "came to the throne". The term "staunchly" is unnecessary: was she really unusually staunch? Might it be POV? Either of the wordings I've proposed is simple and to the point. I have no idea why this has engendered controversy, although the fact that the others don't know the proper use of commas and definite articles gives me a clue. —Srnec (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree, though I don't think "staunch" for Mary should be objected to. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the nonrestrictive appositive that Dabbler had created when he added the second comma. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I got other more important things to do. Do what you want. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, we need a restriction on "the Roman Catholic monarch". Thus, a nonrestrictive apposition won't do. But you've realised that now, haven't you? —Srnec (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Cranmer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more material from Cranmer specific source for FA. -- SECisek 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)