Talk:List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Erroneous link.

The George Marsh link takes you to the entry of George Perkins Marsh, an American philologist and diplomat who lived in the 19th century and not an English Protestant who was burnt at the stake by Queen Mary. Nothingbutmeat 11:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed -- SECisek 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One more.

The William Flower link is also incorrect. Nothingbutmeat 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed -- SECisek 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative text for this page

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 18 for incorporation into the text. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an understandable tendency, I suppose, to read history backwords; to assume, in other words, a given set of outcomes; that what is is what had to be. But do remember that when Mary came to the throne in 1553 Protestantism was still a fairly recent graft on to the English tree, and not all that popular, if the Pilgrimage of Grace can be considered as an accurate measure of the national mood. The ease with which Mary swept aside the challenge of Lady Jane Grey and her tiny Protestant party provides additional confirmation, if any such is needed, that there were no real fears of a Catholic restoration.

So Mary was very well placed at the outset of her reign to return England permanently to the Roman faith. Most people had little in the way of deep emotional attachment to the reformed religion, and were quite happy to observe the outward and conventional forms of belef. Even at their height the Marian persecutions only embraced a tiny proportion of the population. But the persecutions and the burnings, as is the way with these things, were completely counter-productive: they did more to foster anti-Catholicism than any Protestant propaganda.

As early as October 1553, Simon Renard, the Ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, wrote that "It is easy to forsee that there will be difficulty in repressing heretics without causing scandal...The thing most to be feared is that the Queen may be moved by her religious ardour and zeal to attempt to set matters right at one stroke, for this cannot be done in the case of a people that has drunk so deep in error." The subsequent burnings were to confirm all of his fears, as the dominant mood among the thousands who witnessed these auto-da-fe seems, for the most part, to have been one of sympathy and anger. Foxe's later accounts of the martyrdoms is undeniably biased; but it finds support in contemporary accounts by Catholic observers. Giovani Micheli, the Venetian ambassador, who witnessed the burning of Rowland Taylor, wrote that the people were so angry that they planned to set fire to the houses "and raise a great tumult; not merely to release the Doctor from the stake, but to punish and revenge themselves on those whose religion was opposed to their own." When he left England in 1557 he noted that "the public mind is more than ever irritated."

It wasn't just ordinary people who were repelled by the burnings. A reading of the Acts of the Privy Council uncovers many examples of local officials less than enthusiastic in the enforcement of the heresy laws. Action had to be taken against jailers who allowed Protestant prisoners to escape. In 1557 letters were sent out to sheriffs and baliffs throughout the home counties, asking why sentences for heresy were not being carried out. Sir John Butler, the sheriff of Essex, was fined £10 for allowing his deputy to reprieve a woman sentenced to burning. Some, like Thomas Causton, were inspired by example-"Ye say that the Bishops lately burnt were heretics. I pray God make me such a heretic as they were."

Even some of those close to the Queen could see that things were going badly. Stephen Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, had believed that if an example was made of a few of the leading Protestants that the rest would be frightened into conformity. When this failed to happen he ended burnings in his own diocese. Those who were frightened into conformity elsewhere observed only the outward forms of Catholic belief, as Micheli and others made note, which explains why the Marian counter-reformation was so easily and quickly put into reverse when Elizabeth came to the throne.

But there is also another factor to be drawn in here, the one thing above all others that explains why Mary's policy was so counter-productive. Persecution had worked elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Catholic Austria, in reducing the appeal of heresy; but only when force was accompanied by persuasion; by an active evangelical mission. In England this simply did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. Quite simply the church lacked the means. All of the land and wealth lost during the Dissolution of the Monasteries was not returned; for to do so would have been a challenge to the interests and power of the nobility; and that, even for Mary, was a step too far. Reginald Pole, had pressed for this, with no success; for the beneficiaries of the redistribution had included many Catholics, as well as Protestants. There was no money, so there was no mission; only the terror-and the example-of the burnings.

Mary lacked money; she also lacked time. Her early death from cancer in 1558 ended the counter-reformation. More than that, the failure of Mary's reign, the examples and the lessons it provided, were to be the foundations for the Elizabethan Reformation, more complete and lasting in every way. Clio the Muse 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but. . .

I agree that this would be better than the existing text, provided that numerous detailed citations are supplied (e.g. protestantism was "not all that popular": as per Wikipedia Policy, supply the precise results of the quantitative survey on which this conclusion is based).

But I see a problem: a Neutral Point of View may require a very short article, because the title of the article is itself an expression of a particular (some might say extreme) point of view. An article is needed, because the general reader will encounter the expression "Marian Persecution", and will want to "look it up". The article needs to say that the subject refers to a particular series of executions, that they occurred during the reign of Mary I (not under her!), and that people were executed primarily because they were unrepentent Protestants. The Book of Martyrs needs to be mentioned as the means whereby the cultural memory of the events was perpetuated and amplified.

However, discussion of historical background, causes, motivations, discussions of whether the "executions per annum" were above or below average, etc need to be left to articles on the history of the period (e.g. History of England, Mary I). If the article title had been "Religious persecution in the Tudor period" then more commentary might be justifed, but anything more than a brief factual account of something like "Marian Persecutions" invites unresolvable Point of View warfare. . . .LinguisticDemographer 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims about burning don't stand up to facts=

How can one claim that Calvinists didn't burn people given the way Michael Servetus was executed? It's true that Calvin argued for merely decapitating Servetus, but in the end, he was burnt to death.

I also find claims that burning was unusual in England hard to believe, given that people were burned under Henry VIII and Edward VI. To give just one example, John Forest was burnt alive on 22 May 1538, with Hugh Latimer presiding, and with a fairly famous pilgramage image, Davell Gadern, used as the fuel for the fire.

I have removed this bit: Second, she used burning more than would be used by most English kings. This horrified Protestants as Catholic persecutions of early "heretics" used burning as the method of execution. Therefore many in the Protestant camp came to see burning, rather than killing religious dissenters itself, to be the barbaric act[citation needed]. Therefore when Protestants gained power they generally favored hanging, flogging, shooting, or even eye-gouging as the preferred method of executing religious dissenters. Likewise Catholic kings before her tended to use beheading, being drawn and quartered, and hanging as execution methods. The image of burning as the greatest emblem of religious persecution would continue in the English speaking world long after it stopped being popularly related to Catholic actions. Hence Calvinist killing of suspected witches is often referred to as "witch-burning" despite the fact most Calvinists rejected burning anyone as being a "Papist" practice.[citation needed]

The person claiming that Mary was much more likely to kill someone for heresy than for treason is missing the reality that under all the Tudors, heresy was treason.

A Nonny Mouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.142.101 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Historiography

I think the best way to get around the NPOV problems with this page is to expand it considerably with a section on the historiography of the Marian Persecutions. This would have to include some comment on 'revisionist' Catholic historians like Eamonn Duffy, as well as the 'traditional' Anglican view. I myself am not qualified to write this, but I am sure it should be possible to find someone who is.

The list of references also needs to be considerably expanded.

131.111.220.6 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

I've removed all the POV statements.

1. If there were in fact 270 martyrs, named or not, you need a source for that statement. 2. Whereas you may believe that the source of the persecution is due to the 'desire of the common people' to read scripture, that doesn't explain why many high officials appear on this list. It's also POV. If it's Foxe who states that it lit the fire under the Reformed church, that neglects the whole fact that Henry established the church in his reign. It would make more sense to express the persecutions as a part of the Counter-Reformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.253.135 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

tell me?

Should Joan Waste be in this list? Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she should and I've added her Ausseagull (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legacy and Primary Sources

This page has some much-needed factual detail about the history of the persecutions. It would be further improved with the addition of material from the martyrs themselves and the court records (mentioned but not quoted). "Legacy" also needs to be either developed and made more neutral or removed.Redcknight (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Context

This article claims ...she does not seem to have killed any more for religious dissent than other Tudors. However the Bloody Mary (person) article claims:

...she executed more than twice as many as had been executed for this crime over the preceding century and a half.

Which claim is right?--Johnbull 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that whilst other Tudor monarchs executed similar numbers, they did so over a much longer period - Mary's reign being for only 5 years. Nylarathotep (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Isn't the real issue that Mary executed for heresy, even if the person was no threat whatsoever, while other monarchs executions were more about treason and threat. Mary tended to persecute people who were clearly no threat, and indeed not in her political interest to execute rather than others for whom religious persecution was politically motivated.

Mary executed people because of their religious beliefs per se rather than the outworking of them. Popular sentiment is more sympathetic to a monarch wanting to execute people who because of their religious beliefs might want to overthrow them, but executing old men and women who were not really a threat to anyone appears pointless. I think this context needs greater emphasis in the article.

---

Really no. Firstly, to Mary (a devout Catholic), such persons WERE a threat. To the Catholic faith and the English Catholicism she believed in. From a purely pragmatic point of view, the conflation of religion and politics in the early modern period ensured religious instability effectively equated to political instability - the mere presence of such belief was perceived as detrimental to the nation, viz. unauthorised meetings, recognition of alternative authority, the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, and so on. Secondly, although I myself make no judgement on this, Mary believed, as did most Catholics (I'm not sure re. other denominations), that burning gave heretics the greatest possible chance of redemption - on the grounds that those who experienced 'the fires of Hell' would make them repent and thus gain salvation - the alternative being that Hell fire in perpetuity. No offence intented, but your point of view is mistakenly anachronistic. Consider, for example, the forced conversion of Shylock in Shakespeare's TMOV - to us, it is an infringement on his human rights, to Antonio, it is salvation. Nylarathotep (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you see she was practically RIGHT to burn people alive out of a real concern for their welfare. We think of her as a small-minded despot, her attitudes warped by religion, but this is mistakenly anachronistic, as you so truly say. You see it was done to save the soulsYAROOLEGGODIDNTMEANTAKETHEMICKEYYYY Campolongo (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Also argh, this article needs a lot of work and removal of POV. I'll do some now, but don't really have the resources to rewrite the entire thing (as the UL and Seeley are unavailable over the vacation ;)) Nylarathotep (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CAPS

Why is the P capitalised? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! The relevant convention is "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun." Here, there is no proper noun, merely a buzzword. I support moving it. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Marian persecutions. Uncontested plus the implicit consent of In ictu oculi in discussion above. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Marian Persecutions → Marian persecutions – Per discussion above and MoS, second word of title should be lowercase unless it is a proper noun. Bjenks (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Roman Catholic Recognition

I know that the Anglican church recognises St Thomas More as a saint, but does the Roman Catholic church have any views on the Marian Martyrs? Are they included amongst the the "English Martyrs" they venerate? 86.41.187.247 13:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In a word: no. -- SECisek 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The C of E doesn't recognize Thomas More as a saint217.171.129.69 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. --Secisek (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the comparison - in the introduction - between the 300 Protestants killed in 4 years, with the 300 Catholics killed over 100 years? Incidentally it would have been English, not British, civil authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Evidence Please!

As a Roman Catholic I just don't believe that 'This is not a complete list' and there were supposedly another 200 or so more people burned. If the 'executions were mostly carried out in public places and were witnessed by large numbers of the populace' and after judicial process why can't we have some names? At the very least 'This is not a complete list' needs a citation from some accredited historical source

Contrast with the fulness of the Catholic record: the List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.223.216 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this phrase: 'Using statistical variance the lower estimate of 300 executions may extend to some 1472 victims throughout Mary 1st, 64 month reign, equating to some 23 individual executions a month'? This looks like grade A bullshit but I'm happy to be corrected. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Henrician persecutions?

This page provides (or attempts to provide) a list of those Protestants (including/plus the odd Arian like Patrick Pakingham) executed during the reign of Mary Tudor. List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation provides (or attempts to provide) a list of those Roman Catholics executed during the reign of every Protestant English/British sovereign from Henry VIII to Charles II (except for Edward VI, during whose reign there were no such executions). Is there a page which provides (or attempts to provide) a list of those Protestants executed during the reign of Henry VIII? If not, then I suggest that there should be one. "List of Protestant martyrs" generates no wiki hits. How about "List of Protestant martyrs under Henry VIII"? Alekksandr (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And is there a list which contains people like Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, an anti-Trinitarian and an Anabaptist executed during the reign of the Protestant James I? Alekksandr (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all very difficult to delineate isn't it. I just moved one who had been given "heretic" on his wikipedia page name for no obvious reason; I think we stick to martyer for those killed for their faith? There are also all of the other deaths under the various inquisitions to consider and all the ones like Knights_Templar#Arrests.2C_charges_and_dissolution/ It might also be interesting to have a list of Martyrs memorials of which there are many. For example there are 17 names on the one mentioned [1] but we do not list them and it is hard to find out anything about them. --BozMo talk 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

http://archive.org/stream/seventeensuffolk00layarich#page/n15/mode/2up is a book called 'Seventeen Suffolk Martyrs' which may be those in question.

1. Thomas Bilney died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

2. Agnes Wardal is shown on this page as having escaped

3. Robert King died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

4. Robert Debnam died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

5. Nicholas Marsh died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

6. Robert Gardener died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

7. Kerby (Ipswich martyr) died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

8. Roger (Kerby's page says 'Roger Clarke') died under Henry VIII, so does not belong on this page, but would on the proposed one.

9. Rowland Taylor appears here.

10. John Alcock [2]

11. Sir Richard Yeoman/Yeman,(Rector) appears here

12. [] Dale appears here under March 1558

13. Robert Samuel appears here.

14. Agnes Potten appears here.

15. Joan Trunchfield appears here.

16. William Pikes appears here.

17. Alice Driver appears here, as does Alexander Gooch.

Appendix A, P 107, gives a list of some others.

(Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!)

On further consideration, I suggest that this page could be merged into one entitled 'List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation' (compare List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation) which would cover both those named here, those who died under Henry VIII, and the radical Protestants/Anabaptists/Arians executed under Protestant monarchs. Alekksandr (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the same 17 I am afraid (there are at least two other Suffolk martyr groups of similar size but all Mary I. --BozMo talk 19:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bury St Edmunds ones are listed here: http://www.gravestonephotos.com/public/cemetery.php?cemetery=1944 --BozMo talk 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This article does list

1. 'James Abbess Shoemaker (of Stoke by Nayland) burnt date unknown September [1555] at Thetford, Norfolk'

2. Roger Bernard, 17 June [1556], died by unknown deed. Location Unknown

3. '... Dale, died in Bury St Edmunds Prison, dated unknown [March 1558]'

4. 'John. David/Jhon Dauy, burnt November [1558], Bury St Edmunds

5. 'H. David/H.Dauy,(brother of John David) burnt November [1558], Bury St Edmunds'

6. 'Adam Forster, 17 June [1556], died by unknown deed. Location Unknown'

7. 'Philip Humphrey/Philip Humfrey, burnt November[1558], Bury St Edmunds'

8. 'Martyne Hunte, death by unknown deed, June [1556], 'King's Bench' Temple, London'

9. 'Robert Lawson, 17 June [1556], died by unknown deed. Location Unknown'

10. 'Robert Milles, burnt 14 July [1558] at Brentford, Essex'

11. 'John Morris, 16 June, died by unknown deed. Location Unknown' - may be the same as 'J Norice'

12. 'Thomas Parret, died in prison June [1556], Location Unknown'

13. 'Thomas Spurdance, burnt, day unknown in November [1557], Bury St Edmunds'

That leaves four not on this page - James Ashley, Roger Clarke, John Cooke, Alexander Lane.

http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe387.htm gives details of Cooke, Lane and Ashley, who seem to have died with Miles/Milles

http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe207.htm gives details of Roger Clarke of Mendlesham, who died in 1546 (under Henry VIII). Alekksandr (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. I had not found that Foxe online. --BozMo talk 10:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

However the monument itself lists dates of death and Roger Clarke of Mendlesham it says was burned in Nov 1558. John Dale weaver from Hadleigh died in Jail July 1558. But it is a Victorian memorial so I guess not that reliable a source. --BozMo talk 10:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The wording on Alexander Lane is "Wheelwright, Stoke by Nayland, Burned August 1558. On John Cooke it is "Sawyer Stoke by Nayland Burned August 1558". --BozMo talk 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

London Little-grace

These were given as the names of two martyrs. However, http://www.bartleby.com/261/101.html#note101.3 says that this is a reference to Bonner, bishop of London. I have therefore deleted these names. Alekksandr (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Died in Prison

The article gives '... Minge, burnt (day unknown) June [1555], Maidstone, Kent'. Foxe's Book of Martyrs http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe298.htm says that he was called William Minge and died in prison. I therefore propose to delete him from this list of martyrs.

William Ailewarde (of Reading), Died in prison (day unknown) July, Location unknown[7]. I therefore propose to delete him from this list of martyrs.

William Androwes (or Andrew), died in prison (day unknown) September, Location unknown George Kyng (or King), died in prison (day unknown) September, Location unknown I therefore propose to delete them from this list of martyrs. Alekksandr (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

References

I am not sure about the correct convention but people who died in prison are often listed on the Martyr memorials. Some people presumably therefore think they are included. Presumably this includes people who were tortured to death for refusing to plead, which I think was common. I think we should probably move the article based on current content to Marian Martyrs anyway. --BozMo talk 13:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to have a separate section at the end for those who died in prison. In any case, I feel that this page and List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation should have the same policy. Alekksandr (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Should they have a similar name as well? --BozMo talk 06:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated above 'On further consideration, I suggest that this page could be merged into one entitled 'List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation' (compare List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation) which would cover both those named here, those who died under Henry VIII, and the radical Protestants/Anabaptists/Arians executed under Protestant monarchs.' Alekksandr (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is ok by me. Bloody Mary would need a specific section just because of the cultural importance: it is argued by some that she and Pius V were entirely responsible for the current CoE not being in communion with Rome. I think people who had misgivings would have them with the Catholic title anyway (prefering Roman Catholic since Henry was properly a Catholic unlike his son). For the sake of good form I suggest a comment with title "proposed page move" and if there is no dissent in a couple of weeks we can do it. --BozMo talk 06:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

John Schofield

There is no reference for him, and I can find no details of him. I therefore propose to delete him. Alekksandr (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

Per above discussion to "List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation". No objections yet noted in several months so this is a last chance for protest before I move it. --BozMo talk 19:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

Under "Legacy", the Oxford monument is mentioned. It is said that it applied to all 300 executed. It actually only refers to three, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.113 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See Martyrs' Memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.113 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Should or will such one-sided lists get us all prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred?

Should or will such one-sided lists get us all prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred? I'm joking of course, but many a true word is spoken in jest. Shouldn't we be trying to merge this kind of list so that Catholics get to learn about Protestant martyrs, and vice versa? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Inter-linking the two lists and making them more obviously symmetrical seems like a good idea per the page move proposal above. And I agree that there is a risk even on 450 year old stuff particularly since a perception exists that the Church of England's separation from Rome was entirely caused by "every market square in England being filled with screams and the smell of burning flesh" to quote one of my school teachers. --BozMo talk 07:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bozmo. Clearer linking of the two English lists (preferably with 'on the other hand, see ...' sentences in the lead paragraphs) seems like a good idea if merging the articles is too difficult.

Since the discussion has got underway here first, I'll shortly be redirecting discussion from the English Catholic list to here to have it all in a single place, as Wikipedia recommends.

As an Irish person, I'm particularly concerned about the arguably literally murderous effect the one-sided presentation of each side's suffering had in Northern Ireland for much of my life, and might yet have again in the future. (This also led to dozens of people being killed in Britain and in the Republic of Ireland). Fixing the English lists can probably be slightly helpful in Ireland. But fixing the Irish list (of which there seems currently only to be a Catholic one, presumably because there were no Irish Catholic monarchs around to create 'official' Protestant martyrs, as distinct from the thousands of unofficial ones created by rebel atrocities) may well be more difficult, because although there were atrocities on both sides in Ireland as elsewhere, it is difficult to truthfully argue that over the long run there was a roughly equal balance of suffering on both sides if we only consider suffering in Ireland rather than in the wider world (there was such a balance during the recent Troubles, when approximately a little over 1500 were killed on each side, though hate merchants can presumably still twist such figures in all sorts of ways to suit their purposes).

I think it would be useful to ensure there are links between the Irish and English lists, though I'm not sure whether such links can always be justifiably placed in the lead paragraphs of each article.

And I'm not sure whether any such Irish discussion is better conducted here to have these inter-related discussions in one place, or better confined to the Irish list's Talk page (here) because of differences between the Irish and English situations.

Any thoughts on any of that?

Tlhslobus (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.139.7 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum but discussion on achieving a neutral point of view is legitimate. However, personally I know almost nothing of the Irish history and I cannot see much beyond cross-linking which could be done between the topics? --BozMo talk 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

NB that King's County and Queen's County were named after Roman Catholic monarchs of Ireland. I feel that the lists should not be merged, as it is makes more sense to have one list of the Protestant martyrs and another of the Roman Catholic ones. However, I agree that it is sensible to have cross-references. Alekksandr (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Layout of article

Although it would be a big job, I suggest that the article might look better in the format shown here. Alekksandr (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed> I see you have started, thanks for the hard work/ --BozMo talk 20:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Burned or Burnt?

We seem to vary. I vote burned but it does not seem clear cut. --BozMo talk 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Jhon Lothesby

His name had been spelt thus in the article as it is spelt thus in the source, under April 1557. I therefore propose to reinstate it. Alekksandr (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jhon is a correct christian name especially I think in Wales. --BozMo talk 09:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Now reinstated. Alekksandr (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification ?

This line from the lede seems not entirely clear. "For purposes of comparison, the Holy See has recognized a similar number (just over 300) of Roman Catholic martyrs executed by English and Welsh civil authorities in connection with the English Reformation in England, although over a longer period (146 years)."

What is to be deduced from this "comparison"? Particularly, what is meant by "recognized"; those beatified/canonized? Not every "martyr" was officially noted, some were clearly selected as representative of a group. 264 names alone were submitted to Leo III; over 370 appear on the List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation page, a fine effort but neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. Charles McNeill gives a lengthy discussion regarding the lack of extensive records regarding activity in Ireland. [[3]] Perhaps more helpful than this line (which does not seem to summarize anything in the body of the article, and smacks of OR) would be to check out Blood of the Martyrs, An Ecumenical Commemoration of All London martyrs of the Church’s Divisions, Catholic and Reformation [[4]] which lists those persons executed at Tyburn, Catholic and Protestant. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Difficult. Numbers of Marian martyrs are sometimes quoted up to thousands. I think trying to work out which is more is a bit irrelevant. There was brutally on both sides. --BozMo talk 20:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Mannanan51 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

N Peke, Lollard

J. M. Blatchly, ‘Curson, Sir Robert, styled Lord Curson, and Baron Curson in the nobility of the Holy Roman empire (c.1460–1534/5)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 accessed 4 Sept 2014 refers to 'the fire under the Lollard Peke at Ipswich in 1515'. I have therefore deleted him from this list of *Protestant* martyrs. He would of course belong in a list of Lollard martyrs if Wikipedia had one.Alekksandr (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

diction in table header

Perhaps it is a given in the U.K., but I find the use of the word martyrdom appalling; it connotes a religious judgment on the executions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:A8C6:C94E:97D3:962 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Protestants executed under Mary I

The list of names List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation#Protestants executed under Mary I commendably shows them in correct chronological order – all except Agnes Prest who was executed on 15 August 1557 but is listed at No. 279, among those executed in November 1558. Dolphin (t) 02:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)