It was a time when diseases ran their full course, medical treatments could be horrific and pain relief was minimal, such a death was clearly horrific but everyday death could be just as terrible, in the words of George Washington 2 centuries later "I die hard".
@@roberthardy3090 Yes, but the 8th amendment against "Cruel and unusual punishment" that the founders put in the constitution was specifically aimed at this form of execution, which they would all have faced had they lost.
@@TheUntoldPast , one cannot be "focused around" something or anything. Nor can one state with any regard for the meaning of English that "centred around" is also not a nonsense. So is "based out of " and so on. Please, I know this is serious regarding human beings being chopped up whilst still alive. But it's also serious to butcher the language. Leave that to the Americans, please.
@@ccahill2322 Perhaps you could make an alternative video to show as how it 'should' be done ? Meanwhile...thanks to TheUntoldPast for an excellent, informative video !!
I think there were 2 main reasons for the failure of the Babington plot. 1. arrogance and pride. Babington was overzealous and not appropriately cautious. He even went so far as to commission a portrait of the plotters. 2.) the more consequential reason for the Babington plot failure was the tenacity of Walsingham. He NEVER trusted Mary and had spies and informants all over the place hunting for the faintest whiff of treachery from anyone even tangentially connected to her. He was a VERY competent and effective spymaster who had worked for years to get Mary out of the way. Luckily for him she gave him what he wanted.
I definitely agree with this! I think a video looking at Walsingham's spy network in detail would be so interesting. It's amazing what they did during this time period.
@@TheUntoldPast oh I’d totally watch that. His intelligence network was vast and remarkably sophisticated. It’d be fascinating to learn more about it, how it worked, and what he did with it. Whatever else he was no one can deny he was good at his job.
They didn't need to gather intelligence. They controlled what courts there were, like the NAZIs. They just manufactured evidence against their enemies, arrested them and anyone else they had a grudge against and butchered them.
@@TheUntoldPast You are most welcome! You explain the history by getting to the point and keeping the audience very interested. And that accent! Swoon 😉
I am most impressed with your historical knowledge, all your videos are well informed and easy to follow,plus you're a good calm narrator to listen to! Thank you once again, and hope you can do these amazing videos for many years to come...
Actually they were not used to such brutality. Although the sentence was common, most of the time, the victim was unconscious or dead from the hanging part of the sentence when the butchery began. It was not common for the full sentence to be carried out on someone who was fully conscious. Often the executioner was bribed to hang the person until they were dead or the executioner just made sure they were unconscious before the disemboweling began. Elizabeth was very angry when the plot was discovered, and wanted a new most terrible punishment. Cecil, her chief advisor told her there was no need - all she had to do was order the executioner to carry out the sentence fully. This was done, and the first seven of the conspirators had the full sentence carried out. Apparently the crowds were so horrified and disgusted that Elizabeth ordered the next seven, who were executed the next day, be hanged until they were dead before the really nasty part of the sentence began. I have several biographies on Elizabeth, and most of them talk about the crowds’ reaction to the first seven deaths, and the fact the second batch were hanged until dead. This story tells us the crowds were not used to the full sentence being carried out.
Imagine taking your children to the execution and saying, "That Son is why you tell the truth and do the right thing". The long walk home would probably be very quiet.
By that time the Stuart dynasty had been tamed. When the son of Mary ascended the throne certain guarantees had been acquired. The whole episode displays just how impotent the institution of the Crown was and is.
@@phelimridley6727 I don't't think that babbington or ballard would agree with you! Elizabeth was responsible for the wholesale butchery of 1000's of catholics including priests, young men and women. She was a ruthless evil woman.
@@ReferenceFidelityComponents oh I know. As an Irishman I am all too aware of the bloodlust of English monarchs. It has been what is called a Docile Monarchy since The Glorious Revolution. As opposed to an Absolute Monarchy, seen in Russia. The institution of the Crown (or the Monarchy) has been limited in scope by powerful figures in the nobility. This started with the Magna Carta.
Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic so there was no way they wanted another Catholic on the English throne after Queen Mary I, Bloody Mary. James King of Scots was a Protestant.
It was interesting that apparently Babington offered Elizabeth I a thousand pounds (a huge sum of money back then) to pardon him. I never knew that. But surely, as a condemned traitor, his entire fortune would have been forfeited to the Crown in any case.
We speak the same language but our histories are so drastically different .... America has not so much Machiavellian drama , we were chaotic wild and whooley ... England was surgical and the US brutish in terms of political intrigue . Its like a medeivel James Bond plot vs Adult Scout Cubs on Bivuac turned loose with pointy sticks ...I marvel that somehow we ended up The Superpower in the world .
I used to live in New Eltham just over the top of Green Lane and off to right in Domonic Drive. My aunt, Vera Talbot lived in Chislehurst actually in Green Lane most of her life. Before that she lived in Biddenden Way on the Coldharbour Estate. It's a small old world.
In Derby, Anthony Babington’s home town, there is a street in the city centre named after him (Babington Lane) and on that street stands a pub in which there are grand paintings and other memorabilia as it is said to be one of the places he spent a lot of his time, the pub is called the Babington Arms
What, Sir Anthony used to go down the pub? Did he play darts and take part in the weekly quiz? What was his favourite tipple - a pint of Guinness? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Being hanged, drawn and quartered was around for some time. However, even with this horrific punishment in place for treason, still u had those plotting to overthrow or kill their Monarchy! You got to be somewhat impressed! 😯
@John Ellis to me it sounds like they enjoyed it to much. I’ve read court records from that time. At the execution court record was made to make sure it was carried out. It goes into very graphic detail.
Catholic community was singled out particularly by Walsingham even when there was no treason he was ruthless in his persuit of Catholics by various methods and still in the late 16 th Century made up a considerable portion of the population even leaving Ireland aside!
It’s been pretty much proven at this point that the death penalty and public executions don’t have any effect on crime. It’s one of the main reasons public executions stopped - they didn’t accomplish anything.
@@rdeda8129 Yes it does. The lilt upwards sounds ridiculous. He sounds like he doesn't actually know what he's reading about, but is merely reading phonetically and has no idea where the emphasis should be.
@@Thepourdeuxchanson You and Nicholarse, you are two people I'd avoid like the plague at social gatherings... if you both some how managed to find someone daft enough to give you an invite in the first place.
Remember that Anne Boleyn was also 'guilty of treason?' However, Henry VIII just needed her removed so he could try and produce a male heir with yet another candidate. He really didn't wish her to suffer so she wasn't burnt at the stake (the execution method for female traitors). Instead, she was beheaded, which was the proper and honourable way to die for anyone of noble blood and he also hired a French expert to make sure it would be a clean job.
@TOPWORSTMEDIA Incorrect. Anne Boleyn knew that the axe was a very clumsy method, so it was by the sword. In fact, before the verdict , Henry had already ordered the French swordsman who was delayed and the execution was postponed. The truth was that in those days hanging was far more common than beheading by axe hence the general clumsy axemen. Many though including Mary Stewart had botched -up executions perpetrated by thugs and fools. Illiterate sadists who took pleasure from inflicting gross suffering on human beings. Including all the monarchs - monsters all!
The partial hanging was, though nobody understood at the time, so that there would be a rush of adrenalin and the condemned wouldn't die quickly possibly lasting until the heart was ripped out.
One of the Gun Powder Plot conspirators Everard Digby was hung drawn and quartered - when his heart was held up by the executioner with the words "This is the heart of a traitor!" Digby was reported as being able to say "Thou liest!"
After the first group of men were executed, word got back to Queen Elizabeth that many of the people who attended the execution found it horrifying and were offended by it. The Queen showed some compassion and ordered that the rest to be executed were to be "hung until very dead" before drawing and quartering.
I'm puzzled by that. I was under the impression that with hang/ draw/ quarter, the idea was that the subject was lowered just before death, and even allowed a short time to recover a little, before the drawing, where their entrails were pulled out, and burned before them. Having expired,the quartering mostly involved the parts being despatched to remoter parts of the country. This belief : was from school, years ago, and subsequently on various programmes since. Have I had it wrong all these years?
Good to mention this show of mercy, but do you know that it was an act of compassion? Elizabeth was a hard woman ruling a fractious nation. She might have done it to avoid trouble, not because of any tender feeling.
@@steamboatwillie8517 I understood that 'drawing' was being stretched on the rack, that and the quartering (er - what comprised a 1/4?) seeming like overkill after the hanging, and that I could not conceive of being other than fatal. Belatedly too I realise they must no more have believed in the Sky Fairy than I do now, since they never trusted 'God' to deal with these fellow Christians who erred on the side of treason (good pun that, eh? ). Cromwell was a great Republican later on but was keen to keep up the royal tradition of torture.
@@DD-xt6vo I'm sure quartering was hanging until almost dead etc as above, and not the rack. I think a quarter is a limb, and a lump of torso, as the head stayed on a spike at the tower ? Perhaps a ' proper historian' could confirm or correct? It's a long time since I was at school..!!!
The spy network was so impressive, it was all mirrors within mirrors, and when you think you’ve managed to evade it, it catches up with you when you least expect.
@@stefanfilipovits21 it was mainly Robert and William Cecil who were the geniuses behind it. I have huge respect for their intelligence and faith in the crown, they stuck with Elizabeth the whole way, tbf if they didn’t they’d have their heads in a basket 😆
@@bobwillis3023 I’ll say this for Elizabeth, she knew who to hire (essex notwithstanding). You have Walsingham as your spymaster, and the Cecil’s backing him up as well as counseling and administrating and you have a very effective, well-informed, and proactive privy council/government. They weren’t always great human beings but damn were they good at their jobs for the most part.
@@TheUntoldPast here’s some of the more interesting articles I’ve found on walsingham’s spy network. If you’re interested I mean. You clearly don’t need my help with your research. I just found it kinda informative. www.history.com/.amp/news/queen-elizabeth-spy-network-england www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/spying_01.shtml www.atlasobscura.com/articles/queen-elizabeth-is-vast-spy-network-was-the-original-surveillance-state.amp www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Sir-Francis-Walsingham-Spymaster-General/ warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/14/sir-francis-walsingham/
The very worst aspect of the executions are the executioners themselves. What living soul could inflict such barbaric acts upon another human being? Maniacal murders satisfying their horrendous penchant for butchery and suffering. The fact they could hang, draw and quarter a living man, no matter his crime, in front of an audience is beyond any comprehension. People to fear if you had the misfortune to meet one of them. I hope they are burning forever in hell. They deserve no less.
There are more than enough of them around you. If political conditions change for the worse, you would soon find out who they are. And don't forget that there are plenty of people willing to carry out the death penalty without troubling themselves too much. Just reading some of the comments on RU-vid can be very disturbing, because of what it tells you about the people who wrote them.
The job of public executioner was an important office in that era. The prisoners were convicted traitors, and in those days treason was considered an offence against God’s chosen monarch. Don’t judge the people of the 16th century by the standards of the 21st. And executions are carried out today in the USA, aren’t they? Doesn’t seem to worry the populace who exactly is pulling the switch.
@@GradKat possibly you’re turned on by human butchery. Maybe you’re a frustrated executioner and you’d like that ‘important office’ ? We also know that many of the people butchered were actually innocent of treason but were sentenced to death by psychopathically deranged and paranoid monarchs.
@@GradKat Quite right. We should not judge the Romans for crucifying that common criminal and blasphemer, Jesus. Nor Paul, or many of the Founding Fathers for condoning slavery. No judgement is required on the Spanish Inquisition, either., because they were only doing God's work burning heretics. Come to think of it, we really shouldn't judge anyone at any time in history before our own glorious twenty-first century. So welcome aboard Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, all is forgiven!
There's barbaric religious persecution happening in the world right now such as the crucifixion of Christians by isis and the atrocities in China against Muslims including slavery, rape and and organ harvesting. We live in a very sheltered world in the west.
I've noticed that all contemporary portraits of Mary do resemble each other closely - especially around the mouth. So many artists all seeing pretty much the same thing. (By contrast, Elizabeth could be any bony and pale faced woman). In fact, I never have seen an individual so consistently portrayed by so many diverse artists.
Can you imagine knowing that the next day you were going to be executed in this manor, the thought of it must have been truly terrifying, this barbaric vile act is seriously fucked up big time, i mean how could anyone possibly do this to another human being
You have to send a message, Europe at the time was particularly brutal for the very reason you had to deter other houses and make the Catholics understand they'll be ended if they try anything. It wasn't long after that the Spanish Armada tried to invade, which shows just how volatile the situation was. People look at Islam today, and the horrific wars and bloodshed but we were just as bad only half a millennia ago.
It's sadistic and inhumane. Killing someone in this fashion is horrendous. Hanging is an enough punishment for treason, but this is overkill. May their souls rest in peace.
Anthony Babington was a cousin of my direct Ancestor Bishop Gervais Babington. It was absolutely barbaric but it was meant to put off anyone thinking of commiting treason, hence it was done in public and so well written about. The "story" was sent far and wide so everybody knew what happened.
Unless you make a point of discovering the atrocities the British inflicted on the Irish over centuries, or in their Empire phase ( some still believe it exists - e.g. the Prime Minister ) and how they conducted themselves in Kenya ( making Hitler look like a softie). No single nation has cultivated depravity quite like the British, old chap. But you might need to be selective with your history reading because suprisingly, they don't easily own up to it.
@@timmo491 calling them traitors isn't very fair, they were more like political opponents. I know a lot of democrats who would love to use this torture on republicans in USA. And to be fair, it is still highly disputed even today who should really be on the Throne of England. You could also call everyone who won the War of Roses traitors, the same family Elizabeth I came from.
Really!? Lmao, The fact that she is of German stock doesn't matter then? The majority of Britain's royal lineage probably had no real right to the throne given that most of them got there by butchering any opposition...
It was the common people that witnessed all these atrocities that spoke up and finally said this is horrible! Enough is enough! We must stop doing this! And slowly, they changed. Unfortunately we still have a lot of cruelty in the world today
It was not actually common for the full sentence to be carried out on someone who was conscious. The crowd on the first day were so horrified and disgusted when the sentence was carried out to letter, that Elizabeth ordered the second seven on the next day be dead before they were disemboweled.
@@jackspring7709 I think it was common to bribe the executioners make quick work/ make sure the condemned was dead when cut down. I also suspect that even when the executioners were not bribed they would have been very conscious of the mood of the crowd. So if there was an ugly mood in the crowd they would have hurried the death. The reaction of the crowd to Babington’s death is interesting because he and his conspirators would probably have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt even in a modern trial, and Elizabeth was loved. So they would have been unpopular, and one would have thought if the London mob was so bloodthirsty Babington and co the mob would have been happy to see them suffer. I had read from various sources that the full sentence was not common, but I had wondered if that was true. I think the crowd’s reaction to these executions supports these sources and is indicative that it was not common for the full sentence. In fact Elizabeth wanted a more terrible death, and William Cecil, her chief adviser, told her it was not necessary. All that had to happen was to instruct the executioners to carry out the full sentence. She ordered that be done, and then realised the crowd were very unhappy with it and made sure the next lot were hanged until dead.
@@brontewcat Elizabeth wanted a more terrible death for them? I didn't think a more terrible death was possible. Yep, those comments about crowd reaction had me wondering: it's a bit like the salem witch trials, I guess, where most people today think that the entire community was backward and barbaric but in actual fact they were appalled and suspicious of what was going on but were afraid to speak up for fear of being accused. Its good to see that the public back then were probably more civilised than we tend to give them credit for.
@@jackspring7709 I think that’s the point Cecil made - the barbarism of the full sentence was terrible. There was no need to think of a more terrible death if it was actually carried out. The fact he said you had to tell the executioner to carry out the sentence to the letter indicates it probably wasn’t usually carried out to the letter. Also I am not sure people were too fearful to speak our. The crowd made its feelings known very clearly, and Elizabeth got the message.
I didn't know this story, and it's truly fascinating! Out of interest, were there repercussions to the Pope for calling for Catholics to out Queen Elizabeth? This was your first video I've found, off to find another - thanks :)
Imagine just for a moment if child molesters, rapist, drug dealers & murderers faced this fate today. I imagine they would dramatically reduced. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS BE DONE! Please save your energy if the thought offends you.
It all still would happen, the death penalty doesn't stop murder as most are either in hot blood or cold mentally affected & worse a number of innocent people would die & definitely happen & for me after a hard look at it could not have that on my conscience, if you disagree, what if it was your son accused, found guilty but you know is innocent? Here in Britain you can fight it with no death penalty or in various American states just cry at your child's grave..
@@GabrielaLtc Funny you should say that. Well not funny at all. My son was accused of raping a girl during a whirlwind college weekend. She was a willing participant up until when he never called her back. She told him that she had a boyfriend. There was a lengthy investigation & he was exonerated. They said it seemed more like a girl scorned & seeking revenge. The worse part of being falsely accused, word travelled very quickly & his former HS friends were not the friends he thought they were. So his reputation was also damaged... but he moved on to new friends. False accusations of rape are not uncommon in the US of A. Let me modify my statement... as far as rape is concerned, the death penalty should be reserved for the worse of the worse, with sufficient evidence, DNA testing & the level of of the attack. I lectured him and reminded him that he can't just have sex & walk away. What if that happened to his sister, etc.
There would be thousands of people in these societies with PTSD from having watched even "mild" executions let alone this sort of sickening behaviour without knowing it. As I was writing the previous sentence, I got an sms and the chime from the phone made me jump and I'm just looking at old art and listening to a guy describe it, not there to witness it first hand.
My guy, the psyche of people living during those time periods were completely foreign in a lot of aspects to our own. There was a crowd of thousands of people who came from vast distances to watch people get butchered alive. It was a different world, and people looked at death different than we do today.
I can imagine ppl in those times must've had protestant iconography and catholic iconography and put them up and down depending on the monarchical official that was coming around just to stay out of trouble
I imagine the same. Edward vi becoming king, hang up the Protestant iconography, Mary I becomes queen, get the crucifix back up, Elizabeth I becomes queen back to the Protestant iconography. Their heads must’ve been spinning.
when i consider the absurdity of the human condition i sometimes wonder if all of the oceans of the world aren’t just made up of the tears & depths of human sadness & suffering … inhabited as they are by all the monsters of the deep … in many ways this seems to be a very cruel world - i guess eventually regardless of who we are or our station in life .. we will all learn to trance end matter … but in the mean time please let kindness prevail
Hey @TheUntoldPast, have you covered Doctor Lopes yet? He was the physician to Elizabeth that Essex implicated in a plot and got executed for it. I don’t know much about the ins and outs of this but apparently there’s some proof Essex did it out of either petty revenge or after being genuinely misinformed. He was the only royal doctor in history to be executed and there was enough doubt about his guilt that Elizabeth allowed his estate to be returned to his family which is practically unheard of.
I saw a program about this once, walsingham got in contact with him, told him to smuggle the letters in that brewers barrel. But there was actually a coded letter, and Cecil had to try and work it out without the code sheet. He worked out the amount of times certain letters were used in the English language, such as letter e and x. With some of these facts he managed to translate the code, somehow, he was a true genius.
@@beccaboo3040 I mean some of the things she did we probably wouldn’t, if you were in her position, back in a time where evil could be justified, she was seen as unfit as a woman, and she was seen as unfit by catholics. You look at some of those details then you are right
@@scoobymc3375 What country are you a citizen of? If you live in North America, count your blessings. There are slave states in this world where you would have no voice and likely be six feet under for complaining.
@@Section5_CdnIntelService From USA, sometimes I wish I was in a more peaceful place where no censorship. I just want peace, I worry a lot about my country and what it has become. Why can't people not get offended by everything and just be peaceful with each other without killings or violence?
Thank you. It was a horrific and cuel form of execution. Anthony Babbington's home was Wingfield Manor in Derbyshire, and Mary Queen of Scots was held here for a time. Its in ruins, but there are several youtube tours of it,set to evocative music. Alison Uttley wrote Traveller in Time, where a girl goes to stay at her uncle and aunts farm which lies next to Wingfield Manor. She begins to timeslip back to the time of the plot. Its beautifully written.
Question for TheUntoldPast: who is it that decides what adverts are placed in these clips, and where they go? Do you have any control over it? I find it hard to believe you'd deliberately choose to have one plonked right into the middle of a sentence.
Yep...today we are so much more civilized....today we just rip apart , limb from limb a child's body in the womb while still alive for the sake of financial convenience and call it a "women's right"...so much more civilized.
The Babbington Family symbol is still displayed on Babbington Lane in Derby, it is at the top of the building on the first corner. It has Two Baboons facing each other.
Appalling. I have every sympathy for him. The entire thing was a set up to trick Mary. Her life was made so unbearable that she joined the plot, then they got the evidence to have her executed.
Mary was known as bloody Mary for a reason. She killed those who were not catholic as well. The royal family/ families were fearful of being overthrown. Power hungry high class rich rulers, and people died for not being obedient.. and history has replayed this power struggle time and again
@@johnjohnon8767 Mary I was labelled as Bloody Mary, not Mary Queen Of Scots. Henry VIII massacred the Pilgrimage Of Grace marchers who were protesting against the closure of the monasteries. Why was he not labelled 'Bloody Henry'? When his son Edward became king he made the Catholic mass illegal. Had he lived he would probably have had Catholics executed, as would have Jane Grey had she retained her crown. We could have had 'Bloody Edward' or 'Bloody Jane'. Mary I burned protestants; Elizabeth I was more moderate but still had catholic priests burned at the stake. Charles II had to pretend to be a protestant to keep the throne but revealed he was a Catholic on his deathbed. His brother, who was openly Catholic was deposed by William of Orange and his wife Mary. After that no Catholic could sit on the English throne and Catholics became second class citizens. What is incredible is that both groups claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ but chose to worship Him in a different way; for that, both groups tortured and burned each other at the stake. I doubt that is what Jesus would have wanted and I wouldn't describe anyone who would do that to other human beings as Christians. Of course James I had persecuted women and burned them as witches using religion as an excuse - while he was indulging in homosexual affairs. I don't think James was a true follower of Jesus either. In fact, since the Gunpowder plot, we have celebrated bonfire night, which is basically an anti Catholic ritual burning a Catholic on a bonfire. Again, I don't believe this is what Jesus Christ would have wanted as His message was of compassion. What is interesting is that the protestants would have had ancestors who were Catholic. When Edmund Campion, a Jesuit Priest, was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered by Elizabeth I, he reminded her that she had Catholic ancestors.
The school talk on Monday morning; Mum took us to a really gross execution on Saturday morning. child then goes on to describe, in great detail, what they saw. They hung them for a while, then they cut off their tricky bits They screamed for like aaages! It was gross!
You missed the opportunity to discuss the conspirator Sir Thomas Salisbury. He was the eldest son of Lady Katherine Tudor of Berain, who had grown up in Elizabeth's household and was an incredibly wealthy heiress. She married 4 times, had many children and step- children, and earned the moniker "mama cymru" or "mother of Wales." She was a Tudor cousin of the Queen, both through her father Tudor ap Robert Vychan and her mother, Jane de Velville, daughter of Roland de Velville, illegitimate son of Henry VII. Her second son, Sir John, was a member of Elizabeth's court and so high in favor that she arranged his marriage to her Howard cousin Ursula Stanley. John was a patron and friend of William Shakespeare. Thomas's involvement caused a ripple effect in the family. While John ended up better off in the end, for Elizabeth gave him Thomas's lands after they reverted to her following his conviction, in the short term it caused him to separate from his wife, with whom he had a very loving and happy marriage. (They were believed to be the possible inspiration for Shakespeare's poem "The Phoenix and the Turtle," but that seems unlikely as there's better matches than them.) The documents I've seen, as well as the information that descendants of Thomas have told me, point to him being one of the seven executed on the first day. You can imagine the turmoil his betrayal would have caused with the Queen, as he was a blood relative and she was so close to the rest of the family. There was no hint of treason with anyone else in the family. Descendants of Thomas and John still live in Wales, in England, and as far as I know the US, though there may be others around the world. John's eldest son Henry was a renowned poet. John's second son (or grandson with same name, there are a lot of them) immigrated to the Massachusetts Colony. EDIT, looked at my notes again, you were accurate, he was executed on the 21st.
Excellent video! Just finished Kate Williams, the Betrayal of Mary Queen of Scots. Outstanding scholarship. Walsingham's spy network was ahead of its time. Thanks!
What strikes me in all this is the lunacy behind it all. The plotters were willing to kill Elizabeth in the name of their god because she was not catholic and the executioners were willing to torture, dismember and behead the plotters in the name of the same god. You can not get more screwed up thinking than this, it is not which made up deity you pray to but how you pray to them.
I dislike violence myself (although grudgingly recognising it has been necessary at times) and find these thing hard to listen to, but important to try to understand how they reasoned that this was right. A society more used to brutality, and where monarchs ruled their people through fear, and who were often themselves only one battle or war away from death themselves. Mercy was seen as weakness and your enemy would have just taken further advantage of you. In modern times there seems to be a connection between tyranny and cruelty. Hitler’s execution of the Stauffenberg conspirators comes to mind, and some of the excesses of ISIS. What atrocities human beings will do to each other has not gone from the earth: if the circumstances are “right” people return to barbarity: something Orwell shows in 1984 where the regime does return to hanging, drawing and quartering. We sometimes think these things were just what people did back then, and we are way beyond it, but the evidence doesn’t support it.
Botched judicial electrocutions may take over one half an hour. The condemned are literally cooked from the inside out, while their hearts still beat. The Nuremberg defendants sentenced to death were given a minimal drop, so they slowly strangled to death, sometimes taking over one half an hour to die. Even the threat of horrific execution methods often fails to deter evil crimes committed by the condemned.
The bit of history I have a blank spot on is when it became acceptable for there to be female monachs as around and up to the time of Henry the 8th it was not seen acceptable. Why the mindset change, the story and psychology of this.
After Henry died, and his only legitimate son soon after, there wasn’t really any choice but to have a female monarch. Although Mary’s reign(and Jane’s very short one before her) was a disaster, when Elizabeth ruled it was mostly very peaceful and England prospered. I guess her ruling so well and for so long proved that a female monarch wasn’t so bad.
@@wilburanderson2060 I think she was wise not to get a man involved by getting married. She had countless examples of why she should avoid allowing a man access to the throne via marriage. With all the death and drama or drama and death of other royal couples around Europe she did Britain a huge service to the people and the country's future.
I think the change was basically due to the beginning of the modern state and army, and end of the military aspect of the feudal system. Monarchs were no longer on the battlefield. Precedence in England was that women could transmit the right to rule but not be monarchs themselves--for example, Henry VII's hereditary claim, such as it was, was through his mother who was still living, so he was king in lieu of her. After Edward VI's death all legitimate claimants were female. Edward had originally in his "device for the succession" designated Jane Grey's heirs male, then when he knew he was dying amended that to Jane Grey and her heirs male. And so the 9-days Queen was truly the first queen regnant of England.
Thanks for the replies. It's interesting that as far as I can see there are only 4 other female leaders in history. Cleopatra, Wu Zetian, Joan of Arc and Boudica. As far as the period of Queen Elizabeth 1st goes Britain was the only Country to begin with female leaders around that time ,compared to other countries in Europe who only ever had male leaders. I do wonder how the pheasants of Britain felt about this change in sex of the monarch and if there was sexism in anyones attitude and none acceptance including foregn leaders who might have not accepted this change and planned to oust Elizabeth. Fascinating time and do you think Henry the 8th himself accepted Elizabeth to be queen after his death?
so I think on the second day that seven more men were to be executed, Queen Elizabeth on being informed of the gruesome suffering the first seven had undergone ,she had shown the second group some mercy and she ordered that they be hanged until dead and then cut down and their dead bodies butchered , so at least they were already dead and didn't suffer the agony of being sliced up while alive.
@@aurea. Chill Martha. I was being EXTREMELY ironic. Ole 'Liz was as good a 16th C royal killer as existed (except the Turks, naturally). Bess is pretty much the epitome of cold blooded sponsor of state sanctioned murder. Just read up on what Walsingham did with secret service on her behalf.
