Disagreed upon bits: ", as the king's lineage was, in his eyes, traceable directly to
Jesus Christ, and should remain so."
What does this mean about lineage traceable to Jesus - if he got divorced his lineage would not change, nor would the lineage his children trace through him change if he got divorced. If we mean he future children would be illegimate because of the divorce, they would still have the same lineage, although they might not be eligible for kingship. Besides I was not aware that anyone -ever- beleived that Jesus had children. Certainly More as a Catholic wouldn't have beleived this. -rmhermen
- No, you can find esoteric speculation on this if you care to. It basically comes down to: It would have been unusual and worthy of note if a guy in Jesus' culture wasn't married; nobody notes this; therefore he was probably married. Mary Magdalene is usually given as the best candidate for Mrs. Jesus. (And the wedding at Cana, John 2:1 may be an account of Jesus' own.)
I've heard some people talk about the divine right of kings to rule, but that is not an issue of lineage,
but rather about authority.
I think that must be a misunderstanding. Wasn't the issue that Henry VIII declared himself head of the church?
another issue: was More the 'inventor' of Utopian fiction? I know he gave us the word...--
MichaelTinkler
uhhhh - Cardinal Wolsey was archbishop of York and papal legate of the Church in England pre-Oath of Supremacy, which still isn't quite "head of the church". I'm revising now.
--
MichaelTinkler
Michael, you've done a fantastic job helping this article along, but I have a question for you: the article says "which required all who should be called upon to take an oath (1) acknowledging the legitimacy," etc., which I misread twice. It seems to me to be worded in such a way that "all who are called upon to take an oath" must do something, when what you mean is "all who are (summoned to the king's court?) must take an oath affirming 1) and 2)." Does that make any sense? I'd change it except I'm not sure I understand what you mean and my entire knowledge of Thomas More comes from the (fantastic, IMHO) movie
A Man for All Seasons. --
KQ
yes, that does make sense, except that it wasn't necessarily the king's court. I know it was at Lambeth, which is the palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take the oath. Hmmm. I love A Man for All Seasons, too (though lately it's come under a little criticism for making More a little toooo mid-century by-damn-I'm-an-independent-American kinda man). I'll look at it and revise.
"[Desiderius Erasmus]? dedicated his The Praise of Folly to More - the word "folly" is moria in Greek."
moria or moira?
- Moira = fate; Moria = foolishness.
Thanks.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)