User talk:Voggis1

The monastic economy had the function of being a safe environment for the open display of the Church wealth. It was not robbed or pillaged before the dissolution due to the honourable state of the community. When the dissolution took place this entirely change the perspective. It is recorded that Queen Mary Tudor's valiant efforts to return the looted Church property, not to the Pope but to the English bishops,was doomed because she was persuaded to compromise with the agents who had taken the loot for themselves. William Cobbett makes a valiant attempt to exonerate the maligned memory of this good lady in his 'History of the English Protestant Reformation'. Cobbett goes into detail about the the desecration of King Alfred's tomb at Hyde Abbey. Questions are raised upon the sources of Elizabethan knowledge and it must be assumed that much that is accredited variously to individuals of that era had been plagiarised or borrowed from the residue of the monastic libraries. The verses of Philip Sydney Earl of Surrey and the herbal remedies of Thomas Culpepper, as a precursor to this, most likely found their sources in the remnants of monastic libraries. Despite the valuable effort of saving these remnants of centuries of wisdom and learning; failing to accredit the original sources is to be frowned upon. Both the aforementioned were sent to the scaffold in the reign of Henry Tudor, following the dissolution. The Wikipedia account of Hyde Abbey and the total desecration of King Alfred's shrine more than justify Cobbett's diatribes again Bluff King Hal. Whereas I accept my comment on Surrey, 'Philip Sydney', whose remains rest at Framlingham, and Thomas Culpepper to be speculative: questions are thus raised further about the sources of Shakespeare's plays, the actor, and Francis Bacon the antiquarian and statesman.--Voggis1 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)