Talk:Thomas Cranmer/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restore 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  3 Martyrs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Founder or Cofounder of Anglican Theological Thought?

message: 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)
thread_title: Anglicanism Template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recognition? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  25 June 2007 Changes 

message: 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  in 'Six Makers of English Religion, 1500-1700' By Ernest Gordon Rupp. 1974.Ayer Publishing.125 pages , if it is thought suitable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. -- SECisek 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mrs Cranmer's Box

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I'll change it. I  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change. Does it make sense? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I'll stick to this convention throughout the edit.  Thanks!  Galena11 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII vs. Henry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyeditor's notes in hidden comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#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): 
#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:
#"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. 
#"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."
#"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."
#"Cranmer benefited by receiving various former church properties, such as the Cluniac nunnery at Arthington." Reworked to something verifiable.
#The second paragraph under Royal marriages and executions
#"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)
#"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)
#"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.
#"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)
replies: text: I will horiz. the cites later! -- SECisek 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, Harvard referencing is the way to go. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to the article

message: 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:   
 
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Somewhere within all those IP packets, I hear the echo of a "Gotcha..." :-D --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocryphal story 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There you have it, thank you! -- Secisek (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks Ealdgyth. I thought it should be 30 March as well. Could I ask you to change the text for the  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)
replies: text: Better yet, keep the  parameter (as past editors on other articles probably used the enthronement date) and add another one,  for example. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that Template:Infobox Archbishop has been recently created by the template guardian who brushed me off. He/she uses  and instead of , uses  instead. Perhaps Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury should be the same? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Enthroned

message: 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)
thread_title: Some possible sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Children of Cranmer 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Saint or Not?

message: (The following was moved from User talk:RelHistBuff. —Srnec (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ignore the idiot on sinus pills who pushed the wrong button please!) Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definite article with separated element now in. @Ealdgyth: Hope you feel better soon. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Strongly agree, though I don't think "staunch" for Mary should be objected to. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the nonrestrictive appositive that Dabbler had created when he added the second comma. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

message: Substituted at 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment