Talk:Reginald Pole

Strange Contradiction
2nd paragraph:

... he represented Henry VIII in Paris in 1529, persuading the theologians of the Sorbonne to support Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

5th paragraph:

... Pole withheld his support and went into self-imposed exile in France and Italy in 1532...

Can this get clarified? I was under the impression that he did NOT - at any point - support Henry VIII marriage annulment.

--natz 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadworks (talk • contribs)

Burning
I was a bit shocked to see that this page had existed for years without a single mention of Cardinal Pole's (major) share in the persecution and burning of Protestants, which is by any standard the most important thing which he did. I just came across this aticle by chance and added a reference, it should have been done long ago (when the article was first written, actually!). Adam keller 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be surprised, Wikipedia is biased towards catholicism and even the IRA! No wonder educators all over the world demanded students refrain from using Wikipedia as a research tool! Some of the English/British Historical/IRA/Sunday Bloody Sunday and other articles were sourced back to the Vatican! They obviously have a lot of time on their most-biased of hands.Twobells (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship
I think a work of great scholarship should be added to the bibliography of Reginald Pole, namely, Thomas F. Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)[Roy H. Piovesana, 11 September 2006]

Is there any explanation in the book for the odd coincidence of his death just after the queen's? That deserves some comment - especially since it turned out to be so convenient considering how vulnerable he would have become to the attacks of his enemies once Elizabeth was queen. Was he in poor health or could he have been poisoned?--AssegaiAli 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias
This article is strange. Some points make him look like a saint, others like a demon. Pole was very much a man of his time with all the positives and negatives that went along with that epoch. I will work hard to balance this article and I ask others to work with me to that end.SECisek 09:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury
In this Vatican document Archbishop Coggan is always refered to as the 'archbishop of Canterbury'. He may or may not be a priest in the eyes of Rome, but he is certainly the archbishop of Canterbury in the opinion of the pope. -- SECisek 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reginald Pole was indisputably the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. Donald Coggan was indeed called the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Pope, because he was the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, Coggan was not Roman Catholic; the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury was Reginald Pole. Similarly, Justin Welby is the current Archbishop of Canterbury, but Reginald Pole remains the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, because Justin Welby is not Roman Catholic. 24.218.81.61 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed text.
I removed the following, because it's so polemical in tone and needs reffing anyway.
 * Pole shares responsibility for these persecutions and mass burning of Protestants which became the norm during Mary's reign and - contrary to his intention - contributed to making the Roman Catholic Church hated for many generations in England.

If you want to replace, please do a proper job and show Pole's role in burnings, and also some info about burnings. As far as I remember (and i'm no expert), Mary and Elizabeth killed approx same numbers for religious reasons, Elizabeth over a longer period. So surely then the Church of England was hated for many generations in England... Er... JackyR | Talk 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not really contested material. It is quite easily cited as the scholarship is in agreement with this assesment. Mary and Elizabeth did kill approx. the same number of people but Mary did in 3 years while Elizabth spread it out over 40. Elizabeth had better P.R., and could claim patriotism for her cause after her excommunication in 1570. With the threat of the Armada Roman Catholicism was equated with the worst forms of treason. If you really need a more in depth explanation on why Mary was hated and the Church of England wasn't see Elizabethan Settlement. That said, the article still needs a great deal of work for GA. -- SECisek (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's an improvement. Would it be a further improvement (less Churchillian!) to rephrase it as:
 * According to Winston Churchill, many common people who had been indifferent to Protestantism in the past turned away from the Roman Catholic Church in light of the actions of Pole and Mary.[9] Writings such as John Foxe's 1568 Book of Martyrs, which emphasized the sufferings of Protestants under Mary, helped shape popular opinion against Catholicism in England for generations.[9] Roman Catholicism would remain outlawed in the UK until the 19th century.[10]


 * Though I'd still like to know what Pole's actions were that led to the burnings - did he light the pyre, or preach against heretics or what? Be good if this could be filled out.


 * Btw, this article is not the place to discuss it, of course, but presumably Catholics, Dissenters, Puritans, Covenanters, etc did hate the Church of England - they just didn't get to create "the scholarship" - with all those nice laws preventing them from studying or gaining positions. Even so, I'm surprised anybody still repeats "Catholics were hated because of fear of treason" stuff. Come the 17th century, Britain happily allied with Catholic France and Spain to attempt to curtail the power of the Protestant States of Holland in the Anglo-Dutch Wars - then promptly invited one of the Dutch leaders to help overthrow the English King! Anti-Catholicism seems more like an occasional convenience for rousing the mob. JackyR | Talk 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. Anti-catholic sentiment was deep seated and can't simply be explained as simple rabble rousing. Deep sectarian divides exist to this day in northern ireland, and to a lesser extant in cities such as Glasgow and Liverpool. In any case it James II and not Charles II who was replaced by William of Orange. An unpopular catholic king replaced by a protestant Dutch one. Kosh5 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewording added. It was quite Churchillian, which I must confess to enjoying a great deal. Still, it was a little over the top.

As for what Pole did - again - the article needs much work from top to bottom. There is no mention of his squabble with the pope at the end of his life. These details are vital in painting the whole sorry picture that was his time as archbishop of Canterbury. I had intended to work this article to GA last summer after I finished my work on Thomas Cranmer, but never got around to it. If Pole interests you, I also did much work on William Cardinal Allen, Pole's contemporary, who was some what more successful at discharching the Counter-Reformation in England then Pole was. -- SECisek (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've now also found refs in Simon Schama's History of Britain - it's not a specialist title but Schama is at least a historians' historian, rather than a Tory politician... I've also tried to make it slightly less incomprehensible for readers without knowledge of the Reformation. I'd be most grateful if you could cast an eye over this for howlers. I'm afraid Pole was only an accidental interest for me (how did I end up here?): I just removed the part that was clearly not WP:NPOV in tone. I don't have info on him other than in the Schama. Anyway, good luck with taking it up to GA. Best, JackyR | Talk 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I pulled out my copy of Schama and mad a slight tweek to the language. I really would like to edit this to GA. Pole was such an interesting individual. -- SECisek (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nicely done, sir! :-) JackyR | Talk 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Archbishops of Canterbury template
The template in use on this page, has Thomas Arundel which needs to be disambiguated to Thomas Arundel (archbishop). I have been and updated the template named on the page Archbishops of Canterbury, however, it is not reflected in this article. Can someone please give the template a shove and see what can be done to update it. Thanks. --billinghurst (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It needed a 'null edit'. Done. --billinghurst (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

John Foxe
John Foxe's Acts and Monuments (or the Book of Martyrs) was published in English in four editions during Foxe's lifetime: 1563, 1570, 1576, and 1583. 1563 is significantly shorter than the other three editions (and is rather more disorganized), so that edition may not be the best one to cite. At the very least, there is no 1568 edition, so I propose changing that bit of misinformation. 143.167.189.187 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiction
Pole is also featured in "The Tudors" TV series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugguitar (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1557 Imprisonment
I removed this:

In 1557, Pope Paul IV imprisoned him in the Castel Sant'Angelo (with others, including Egidio Foscherari and Giovanni Morone), on suspicion of being a Lutheran. The prosecution entirely failed.

Pole never returned to Italy to be imprisoned. Had he returned, he probably would have been imprisoned.

John H Percival (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Became Vicar?
After his return he became Vicar at Piddletown, Dorset, between 1532 and 1535. 1536, but who's counting? More seriously, this is likely to be misunderstood: Pole continued to hold all his other benefices too; he was a non-resident pluralist on a grand scale (and was not ordained). In addition to everything else, therefore, Vicar is the wrong word; Pole had a vicar - I trust in priestly orders - who presided at Piddletown for him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this misconceives the word 'vicar'. Pole was admitted as Vicar of Piddletown on 20 December 1532 and undoubtedly was vicar there, but he seems to have been an absentee, in which case we can suppose he had a curate on the spot, rather than a vicar. Shall we change "he became Vicar at Piddletown" to "he held the benefice of Vicar of Piddletown"? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A reasonable wording. There were several other benefices not yet listed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Priest and bishop
There are issues with the dates in "Pole, ..., was finally ordained as a Priest on 20 March 1556 and raised to Archbishop of Canterbury in 1555": to make things worse, French Wikipedia says "Pole fut enfin ordonné prêtre le 20 mars 1557". I suspect that there are questions over the English Julian calendar (new year at the end of March) and the difference between announcement and consecration, but they need explanation.--Rumping (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reginald Pole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609191724/http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/play/queenmary/queenmarya5s2.html to http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/play/queenmary/queenmarya5s2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520070851/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/12_1570_2142.jsp to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/main/12_1570_2142.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction - date became a cardinal
The "Cardinal Pole" section starts "In 1537 Pole, already a deacon, was created a cardinal". The last paragraph of that section says "Pole was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III in 1536". DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Whose portrait?
Presumably the inscription on the first portrait identifying the subject as a French cardinal was added erroneously? The picture belongs to the Museum of Fine Art in Budapest, and they seem confident that it portrays Pole. Pluquamconquestator (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Protestants
I was curious was they much in a way of documentation of how he was either treated by protestants or how he was in regards to dealing with members of the protestant faith TeddyRooFan1! (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Later Years
Just for clarification, Reginald Pole did not have his exile revoked until after Queen Mary I and Phillip II wed? and because they thought he may object to the marriage therefore, repealing his attainder was delayed? Thats very interesting. Historianmummy (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Alvise Priuli
Just to point out that the article makes no mention of the Venetian nobleman that Pole lived with for 30 years. I see there is a plan to work this up to GA, so a more rounded view of his life and activities would include his reforming efforts in Italy. I became aware of the wider Pole through Ramie Targoff's recent biography of Vittoria Colonna, which isn't a bad source of references. I am currently exploring a different rabbit hole, but I leave a note for anyone interested. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)