Please respond to the following, making sure that you keep in mind the criteria for the blog responses (see your rubric):
- What key elements was each side successful in arguing?
- What did your side do well?
- What were your weaknesses?
- How did/did this exercise contribute to your understanding of the impact of the Reformation?
57 comments:
What key elements was each side successful in arguing?
Prosecution key elements was that Henry the VII did wanted to go agianst Papal authority, which at that day and age was high treason, and he wanted to be th leader of the church, which is also high treason. The Prosecution supported this argument with such facts like his multiple marriges.
Defense's key elements was that King Henry does not get his power from the church, so therefore he does not need to abide by its rules. They also explained how his marrige to Catherine was invalid, and he had the right to have it annuled. They also explianed that without a male heir, england would fall apart, therefore it was nessecary that Henry had a new wife who could produce a male heir.
What did your side do well?
The Prosecution side, was able to support that what King Henry did was High Treason when we put the Pope on the stand, and I thought I as Charles V made it clear that what Henry VII was doing was Heresy.
What were your weaknesses?
The Prosecution side was not able to refute the Answers very well when we cross examined the Defense Witnesses. I did a bad Job when I Cross Examined Martin Luther, becuase when I asked him about his objection to jews, Melissa talked about how Martin Luther had sinned, and in the end god would have forgive Martin Luther. We also ran out of time on most of our Cross Examinations. I also wished when the defense talked about a englands need for a male heir, the prosecution should of talked about how Queen Elizibeth did a good job when she ruled England.
How did/did this exercise contribute to your understanding of the impact of the Reformation?
This Essay definatly contributed to my understanding to the Renissance becuase it gave me more information on the Major figures of the Reformation/Renissance like Martin Luther and Charles V. Knowing people of the Renissanse/Reformation I was able to understand teh seperation of church and state much better too.
Each side, prosecution and defense, of the Henry VIII trial was argued successfully. The prosecution successfully proved Henry VIII was a heretic by utilizing three main aspects of his life. First they were able to prove that splitting from the Roman Catholic Church was in fact heresy. The prosecution also questioned supporters of the church to prove that any type of actions against the church were heresy by questioning some of the popes of that time such as Pope Paul III and Clement VII. The prosecution also argued that Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was valid and not incest. During cross examination, the prosecution’s witnesses were easily able to answer any questions the defense asked them. The prosecutions cross examination of the defense was less than satisfactory. It was very difficult for them to ask questions relevant to the trial of Henry VIII. The prosecution had an easy time proclaiming Henry as a heretic.
The defense argued that that Henry VIII was not a heretic by using two main areas of argument. First, the defense asked many figureheads of that time such as Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton what were their opinions of the trial. Then the defense asked their witnesses why they were condemned of heresy. Another main area of defense was proving that Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not valid and could have been annulled. The defense argued Henry’s marriage to his brother’s former wife was incest. Also, the defense argued that this marriage was merely a political means to gain power. The defense marginally tried to prove that the Papacy was not capable of making decisions and was politically power hungry.
I was on the side of the defense. My side did three things well. First, we were able to argue that the marriage between Henry and Catherine was not valid by proclaiming that it was a political relationship rather than a relationship of love and that the marriage was incest. Second, we were able to successfully argue that it was not Henry’s initial intention to reform the English church when entering the thrown. His reformation evolved out of his obsession with having a male heir to carry on his thrown, Pope Clement VII’s decision of disallowing an annulment between Henry and Catherine, and Henry’s advisory from Archbishop Cranmer and the Reformation Parliament. Third, through questioning of other heretics, we were able to prove that some of the church’s heretical inquiries concerning scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo were incorrect and could have possibly hindered further development of science.
Some of my side’s weaknesses included the failure to connect some of the witness’s testimonies to the actual trial of Henry VIII. This is evident in the examination of William of Orange and the Protestant Nobleman. One of the areas that my side was only marginally able to prove was that the Papacy was unable to make decisions concerning marriage because they were too entangled in politics. However, this was unsuccessfully proven. Many of the cross examinations to the prosecutions’ witnesses were not based in questions, but rather stating facts and asking the witness if they agree; this is not the proper way to cross examine a witness. Many of the prosecution’s cross examiners knew more about the defense witnesses than the witness did. This shows the lack of research. It is much more difficult, in the case of Henry VIII to prove that he was innocent rather than guilty because of all of the circumstantial and not concrete evidence involved.
This exercise contributed to my understanding of the reformation in many ways. First, I was able to see first hand the “domino effect” of one king’s discontent with a marriage leading to the establishment of the Anglican Church which survives today as the Episcopal Church. Second, I learned about the experiences of other reformers’ interactions with the Papacy and their own church developments. Third, I learned about the impact the reformation had on the development of Europe. It unified many territories and it split others. Many common alliances were formed or broken over religious beliefs. Finally, I truly learned what an awful, disgusting man Henry VIII was by studying his affect on the world and his own laymen and clergymen. This trial helped me learn the significance of the Protestant Reformation.
I think that both sides did a fairly good job at the Henry the Eight trial. The prosecution did a good job arguing that King Henry the Eighth was a heretic according to the Catholic church's view of his actions, which was basically all we had to work with. This case was essentially an opinion call, and we did a good job working with the Catholic church's opinion which was that he was a heretic. The defense did a good job of attempting to destroy our credibility by using evidence such as the illegitimate children of several popes and the massacres carried out by Charles the Fifth. They also did well using the two bible scholars on their side, Martin Luther and Sir Isaac Newton to back up their arguments with biblical support.
There were a few things that our side did well. The first thing was making sure that we kept our testimonies and our cross-examinations relevant to the trial. Everything we did was relevant to the task at hand in some way and no opportunity to further our case was wasted. We managed to steer clear of personal attacks and we didn't embellish the credentials of our witnesses just to give them something to say. We also knew our limits and didn't cross them. What I mean by this is that we didn't try to make scriptural references with witnesses like Phillip the Second or Mary Tudor. We left our main arguments to our Popes who could be less easily discredited by cross-examination. We also clearly defined our argument. We charged King Henry with heresy for specific reasons and stuck to those reasons. This gave our case a good framework.
Our weaknesses were mainly in our cross-examination. We made sure not to make personal attacks, but some of our cross-examinations were so long and convoluted that we couldn't make the points that we needed to make. Another weakness we had was the relevance of some of our witnesses. A couple of our witnesses couldn't do anything but spout opinion either because they had never known King Henry or because they had no real religious authority. This wasn't really our fault, but we could have done more to "shield" our weaker witnesses with soft questions.
I feel like this trial really helped me understand the Reformation. It helped to know what breaking off from the Roman Catholic Church would have meant to major political and religious leaders of that time period. Basically, before this trial I knew that the Catholics were against it and the Protestants were obviously for it, but now I know a little bit more about why. I also learned that as in any argument that it is not as simple as one side versus the other, that there are people in the middle who agree with some of what both sides are saying.
The two sides in the King Henry VIII trial were the prosecution and the defense counsel. In this trial, I was part of the prosecution side.
The prosecution side was successful in arguing that King Henry was a heretic who went against the church in many ways. Although the defense pointed out in many of our witnesses that they were in fact hypocrites, it didn’t matter in the end because Henry was clearly a man who went against the church and its beliefs. The prosecution side made sure to address certain actions that king Henry had partaken in, such as the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy. In every witness that was questioned, we as the prosecution stuck to the topics of heresy and King Henry, unlike the defense council. Also, after every witness that was cross-examined by the defense, our lead prosecutor re-enforced our witness’s position and made them look good - by justifying what they did - before they left the stand. Lastly, our side knew when to say “objection” to certain questions that were asked. In doing that, we were able to come out stronger in the end. We were able to prevent harmful information from being exposed that might negatively impact our side. Our weaknesses were that our witnesses had flaws in their background. For example, some of our witnesses had illegitimate children and were involved in corrupt actions that could also be misinterpreted as heresy. In such cases, we were unable to support ourselves against the defense.
The defense side was successful in arguing that King Henry was not a heretic. They were well prepared in questioning their witnesses. Also, the defense council was able to justify King Henry’s actions that could be deemed as acts of heresy. For example, they justified that King Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon was necessary because he needed a son to continue the family line.
This exercise contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation. It helped me to understand the different views people had towards catholic and protestant religion. Some people supported in the split from the church while others strongly opposed that action. In this exercise, the defense was defending the people who split from the church while the prosecuting side was defending the church and its practices. The impact of the Reformation didn’t only affect religious leaders such as popes, but also affected thinkers and rulers of that time period.
The prosecution was successful in showing that King Henry VIII did indeed commit acts that could be considered heresy. They showed that King Henry VIII did annul his marriage, which strayed from the teachings of the Bible. They also were successful in arguing that splitting from the church should be considered an act of heresy.
The defense was successful in showing that many witnesses for the prosecution’s side had committed acts that were no different from the acts committed by King Henry VIII. However, no one else was being charged with heresy. The defense also was able to argue that King Henry VIII’s marriage was null and void from the start, and therefore an annulment would be considered legal based on biblical teachings.
My side, the defense, did well in clearly showing that King Henry VIII should not have been the only one being charged with heresy based on the acts of other prosecution witnesses. We were able to do this through our cross-examination. Another thing we did well was to prove that King Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not truly legal, and therefore, an annulment was not an act of heresy in this case.
As stated, the defense was able to show that King Henry VIII was not the only one who committed acts that could be considered heresy, and his annulment should not be viewed as heresy. However, I do not feel that the defense was successful in showing that Henry’s splitting from the Roman Catholic Church should not be considered an act of heresy.
This exercise helped to show me the diversity of opinions by the people of this time period in response to the Reformation. King Henry VIII was viewed as a heretic by some, however, many also supported his actions. It also showed me how it is possible to take both sides of this argument. King Henry VIII’s actions could definitely be seen as going against the dogmas of the Church. However many people viewed Henry’s actions as important and beneficial to the advancement of England and did not view his actions as heresy. This exercise gave me a better understanding of the background of the time period as well as the reasoning for the public opinion on this issue and the far-reaching impact of the Reformation.
Overall, I feel that our trial went very well and that great points were made by both the prosecution and defense. I now have a better understanding of how difficult it must be for lawyers to prepare their clients case for trial.
In this trial, King Henry VIII was put on trial for heresy, which is defined by Webster dictionary as: “dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice”. Based upon this definition alone, King Henry was clearly guilty of this, as the Act of Supremacy blatantly violated Catholic Church doctrine. According to the RCC, the Pope was ordained by God as the head of the Christian world, while Henry declared he would lead the Church of England, setting the two points of view at odds. Thus, the prosecution needed to, and did to a great extent, capitalize on this fact and focus on the fact that the trial was about heresy and nothing else. Because Henry VIII clearly did go against the doctrine of the church, the defense had to focus on the idea that perhaps the Roman Catholic Church was not fit to preside over the Christian world. In that sense, the important part of heresy in the trial was, by the defense, shifted from simply going against Church doctrine to the doctrine of God and whether or not Henry was still faithful to God and thus not a heretic.
As mentioned before, the key idea that the defense put on well was that the Catholic Church was not a legitimate source of leadership in the Christian world. Questions were raised by each witness called by the defense as to the intentions of the Church and some of its inconsistencies in its doctrine. As an example, where the prosecution pointed out that Henry had many perhaps illegitimate marriages, the defense was able to point out that much of the prosecution witnesses, including many members of the Church and the popes, had illegitimate children. Thus, the RCC was painted as an organization that practiced hypocrisy as a means to gain power for itself.
What the defense did not do well was to actually prove Henry’s innocence of the crimes he was charged with. Although it was previously mentioned that Henry was more or less completely guilty under the standards of the church and thus proving his innocence outright was not feasible, trying to appeal to a jury that the current system of law is unjust and that the crimes should not be crimes at all would not work in real life and could only be seriously applied in an appeals court. The defense also seemed to have a slightly difficult time responding to the cross examination questions posed by the prosecution. Though this may have been a result of the fact that the prosecution did not attack the credibility of the defense’s witnesses and simply stuck to the subject of Henry and the straightforward consequences of his actions, a stronger preparation for these types of questions probably should have prepared.
From the research done throughout this trial on the various events that took place during the reformation, a great amount of light was shed upon the attitudes of the different groups of people in Europe at this time. On one hand, there were the free-thinkers like Martin Luther who had emerged and wished to truly better society in the way that they had envisioned. For the first time in European history, a group of people were finally effectively offering a challenge to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. From this could then develop new secular schools of thought which would improve the lives of people and introduce the idea of freedom for the first time. However, the monarchies who started to think about embracing the ideas of the Protestant Reformation saw this period of time as an opportunity to gain more power for themselves rather than giving some of it up to the Church. This was especially prevalent with King Henry VIII, who by breaking with the RCC was able to take whatever wives he wished for and have total control of England, including its religious affairs. The third point of view during the reformation would be that of the RCC itself, who saw its dominance over Europe begin to slip away. Their desperation in condemning those like Luther and the leaders like Henry is shown through the harsh measures taken against heretics across Europe, who suffered from threats of excommunication, the Inquisition, and open warfare like that supported by Pope Paul III, who gave 12,000 troops and a promise of full funding for military campaigns against German dissidents. Though it is unclear as to whether the Church was simply afraid of losing their total control over the Christian world or they truly wished to have Catholic unity for the good of the people, they were clearly in a slow decline from power and were desperately seeking to save what they had left.
With King Henry VIII of England on trial for heresy of breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, specific people and ideas were key points used by each side to successfully argue their position. The Defense was particular in degrading the Church by exposing the weaknesses of the Church such as the misuse of indulgences and papal greed. The main targets were Pope Paul III and Pope Clement VII whom were cross examined in hopes of discrediting them for their selfishness in furthering their own interests ahead of the Church’s. On the other hand, the Prosecution was successful in acknowledging the break from the Roman Catholic Church as one committed of heresy in the eyes of the Church which was the sole religious authority of the time and in truth, the only authority that mattered. They were also successful in bantering the people put on stand during the cross examination by exposing their contradictory views among one another, and also among that of the bible.
Speaking in a broad sense, the Defense had no particular forte if defined as having performed exceedingly well during the stand of the witnesses, or during the cross examination. The tactic of the Defense had been to target specific people and continually bombard those individuals to discredit the Church. As a group in general, we worded our questions during both examinations acknowledge the corruptness of the Church, so there was much repetition in mocking the current Church and its beliefs.
There were many weaknesses of the Defense; some subtle that were simply due to poor organization, others big issues that would work against of from the start. Probably the biggest and most challenging issue to overcome is the simple fact that in all honesty, King Henry VIII had committed heresy by breaking away from the Church. Even though we would argue otherwise, it boiled down to the idea that the Defense had argued to win, and not to what was actually right like the Prosecution had. In comparison between the witnesses that were put on stand from each side, it seemed harder for us because our witnesses weren’t exactly bonded together in common beliefs. Many of them had been reformers that were against the Roman Catholic Church as being corrupt, but at the same time, they weren’t united in the sense that they thought King Henry himself was good. As in all cases, there is an obvious victim, and that victim had been Catherine. The difficult task of the Defense in cross examining her is the fact that in truth, she had committed no crime. The victims are victims and because of that, are the only witnesses that generally have nothing against them but are the most wronged by the case. All of the witnesses of the Prosecution had not only bonded together in thinking that the Evangelical Church itself was wrong, but also in thinking that divorce was wrong as well. With these ideas working against the Defense, the mistakes made were all the more visible such as my own mishap of answering incorrectly to the final two questions during my interrogation (as John Calvin). Others were just through the trial proceedings of not lying on stand and because of that, acknowledging that although the Church was wrong, that does not make Henry right.
The trial had actually contributed much to my understanding of the reformation. As explained earlier, the Defense had a difficult time arguing with the Prosecution in whether or not Henry was right or wrong. The main idea that the Defense had held onto was just degrading the Church, which although it lessens the argument of the Prosecution, it still hadn’t helped our side by saying it was right. The justification we had used had been the simple idea of saying since the Church had wronged the people in its ideas, Henry had to be right. It actually seemed to be picking between the lesser evil, which at the time, had been Henry. By seeing this, I realized that the impact of the reformation had played a very large role in this case that during our mock trial, had not been fully utilized. It’s the idea that the corruption of the Church had been so greatly amplified to the people to such a degree where the Evangelical Church had indeed been created. At first it had seemed easy for the Defense because based on history, it had been the Defense that had won, but when acted out, the people’s impact of their feelings towards the Church had been greatly reduced in favor of the Prosecution. Through this, I acknowledge that the Protestant Reformation must have played a huge role during this time period to have developed enough ill feeling towards the prestigious Roman Catholic Church that had seemed so great and all powerful before.
For the Trial of Henry the VIII, both sides did well in arguing their positions on Henry's verdict. As a member of the Prosecution, I think our side did well in researching our "witnesses" as well as working together to come up with questions and cross-examinations that would benefit our side. Specifically, we focused on Henry's claim to be the Supreme Ruler of the Church of England, which to the Roman Catholic Church would be considered heresy, and his selfishness in both his anullment to Catherine of Aragon as well as to his friends whom he betrayed to crown himself Supreme Ruler.
The Defense did well in thoroughly researching their cross-examination witnesses to point out their flaws and relate it back to Henry. One key point that they had was that Pope Paul III had fathered ilegitimate children, which was forbidden by the RCC, therefore linking him to Henry because both "went against" RCC rules. They were successful in arguing that Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid becasue she had, in marrying Henry, married her deceased husband's brother, which would be incest.
The biggest weakness of the Prosecution was not being well enough prepared for the witnesses we were cross-examining. There were a few times when our questions may not have necessarily proven anything, or proven anything to our cause. It was also difficult to question those who weren't in the same time period, and therefore knew limited information on the events taking place. I think we also didn't know when we could object, or what would be acceptable grounds to object on, which ended up hurting us.
The Trial of Henry the VIII helped me to understand the effect of Henry's actions, not only on his country of England but also on other important people both during his reign and following. The trial introduced me to people in greater detail, on what their beliefs were and how they went about either bringing or fighting change in their countries. By having to be prepared as a witness, as well as research to cross-examine witnesses, I had to completely understand and learn each other's position on the Reformation and religion, and because I had to use this information to my benefit, it was more helpful than just reading what went on during the Reformation in our book.
I think both sides in our trial were successful in portraying their individual arguments. The Prosecution emphasised the Kings indecision and contraditcory actions in asking for papal approval for a marraige and then a successive divorce, while the Defense made a good point of debasing the church, its leaders, and emphasizing the incest between Catherine and Henry. However, I think both sides focused too much on character assasination, much as a trial during the Reformation most likely would; it proved to be more necessary to ruin the opponent's reputataion than to bother thinking about protecting oneself and hitting more factual evidence against or for the marraige.
I believe the defensive side proved to have more solid arguments and more effective cross-examinations than the Prosecution. The entire group seemed well prepared and did a good job when pressured by the other side. The defensive cross-examinations seemed much more in favor of King Henry than the Prosectuions were against, and enforced the understanding that the Church, whether or not Henry was deemed guilty, was unable to affect any change in his actions. Myself and the rest of the defensive group were highly successful in portraying the dire need for a male heir to assume the throne after Henry, though the Prosecution made tireless efforts to debase Henry's reputation as much as possible (as well they should have).
The trial greatly impacted my understanding of the reformation, not only by helping me grasp specifics as to what role each individual played during the time period, but their social, religious and political standpoint. It helped me understand the mindset of the various factions during the period and the power they each wielded.
AP EuroBlog
During our trial many good points were brought up on both sides. The prosecution very thoroughly argued that King Henry was indeed a heretic. They pointed out that he married his dead brothers wife which is incest, had affairs with at least two mistress during his marries and then divorced his first wife Catherine so he could remarry in time for one of his mistress to a child. They also argued that Henry was also a heretic because he split away from the Catholic church, renounced it and then passed acts saying he was now the head of the new church. The defense argued that the Catholic church was a corrupt institution and that king Henry tried to get a legal annulment but was forced to wait a very long time to get and answer so he was justified in splitting away from the Catholic Church.
My side was the prosecution and we argued that King Henry was a heretic. We argued that he had no right to marry his brother's wife which is incest and then cheat on her. We also argued that splitting from the Roman Catholic Church to from your own church that suited your needs was a close to the definition of heresy as someone could get.
The weakness of our side was that the cross examination time wasn't long enough and sometimes couldn't get across the point we were trying to make. Also some of the information we got was not one hundred percent factual.
This trial showed me how big a deal the reformation was. It showed that this was a turning point in European history because the Catholic church no longer had control of the kings and leaders of the countries. It showed that the Catholic church was in decline in power and that because it didn't change with society that it would be left behind in favor of newer ideas that made more sense to the people.
AP Euro Blog
Over the past few days the class created a mock trial for King Henry IIIV. We were then divided up into two teams, the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution was trying to convict the king of heresy and the defense was trying to defend the king. Both sides had their strong and weak points. My side the defense had its strong and weak points much like the prosecution, while I myself had personal strengths and weaknesses. This activity helped greatly contribute to our understanding of the era of the reformation.
Both sides were successful at arguing their separate points. The prosecution argued that the King is a heretic for his deeds and changing his religion, as well as for divorcing his wife. This was argued by quoting the Bible, and during the cross of Henry making him reveal his deeds against monks and nuns after the country was forced to convert. Also they weeded out other heretics by asking questions on how religious people such as Galileo really were, (illegitimate children, beliefs about the church, as well as their standing with the church so on.) The defense on the other hand showed the more sinister side of the church, especially the pope Innocent, father of illegitimate children, as well as corrupted church official who used taxed upon him and for the benefit of other high church officials. Also the Bible was again quoted using passages from Deuteronomy. The defense also successfully showed the members of the prosecution as hypocrites.
The side I was on was that defending king Henry. As I stated above we successfully discredited most of the members of the prosecution, as well as built a relatively solid case for ourselves without to much problem. This was due in part to the extensive research on both the people we were and those we had to cross. The cross of the prosecution was the strongest statement made by the defense, for it showed the faults of the church as spoken by its very members.
The weaker part of our presentation was the when we took the stand. Some of our people were very difficult to put a positive spin on. However though shaky we put up a pretty good stand. My personal performance was not good at all in my opinion. During the cross of Queen Mary I attempted to discredit her physiologically by showing the judge that she had a traumatic life and as a result of this trauma she could not provide a concrete argument. This however was not well understood by the judge or anyone else for that matter, so my argument was in my opinion a wasted effort. I did not fair well on the stand either. My person being Oliver Cromwell was not a positive asset for the defense, however I was asked questions that had no relation to my character what so ever, like what his relation to the king was. Oliver was the son of a blacksmith and lived during the time of Charles I and II, not Henry IIIV. This trial was very difficult for me as an individual, but over all my side preformed admirably.
This activity helped give us a more in depth looks on the views of the reformation, as well as the specific case of the trial of King Henry IIIV. We looked into the characters such as radicals like Cromwell, or philosophers like Galileo, or just the average nobleman. This gave us views from all across the spectrum of people who lived back then, allowing us delve into the subject much farther than any textbook.
During this mock trial, both the defense and prosecution did a more than adequate job. I found that the defense mainly attempted to reveal heresy in each of our characters. Their strategy consisted of verifying the strength of one's faith. If one was straddling the fence, that was immediate grounds for questioning the position of where their loyalties lied. If not that, they would question the Queen of Aragon's reasons for being married to Henry VIII, if not for love. The defense would either directly accuse King Henry of heresy or instead question the purity of his defense team. Because, if a member of the defense was in fact a heretic him/herself, what credibility would they have left to defend a man from the same accusation? The defense also tried to label King Henry not as a heretic, but just as a man who saw that that the church needed reformation and that an heir to his throne was crucial in stabilizing the welfare of the British people. They contradicted themselves in saying that they were not in any place to judge King Henry VIII, which raises the question, then what is the point of this mock trial and your defending him?
Our side, the prosecution, did very well when it came to cross-examination of the defense. Our questions were clear and to the point, and most of them related back to King Henry, the focal point of our trial. We used accurate facts and quotes from texts such as the scripture to further intimidate our opponents. However, I felt that we were weak when it came to answering the defense's questions. The opposing team continued to badger our witnesses with seemingly endless questions, quotes from the holy scripture, and used our familiarity with the bible against us. The even went so far as to accuse my family of heresy, though I fail to see the relevance.
This exercise helped me not only to witness the troubles during these times, but the backgrounds of all the witnesses, too. I learned a lot about Calvin and Martin Luther, and even Erasmus, as I had to research all three to provide a well-planned argument during class. The mock trial gave to us, the students, a clearer understanding of how steadfast the people were in their beliefs, and reasons for dissent during this time. Not to mention it was fun too.
-Arrian Karbassioon
Each side was successful in arguing many key points that led to their arguments. The prosecution made very good points on problems that the people around King Henry had with him. Catherine of Aragon especially made good points on her conflict with the king by stating that the king had committed adultery. My side, which was the defense, brought up key elements as well. We discussed how the King was appointed by God, as opposed to the pope, which was elected by people. Thus we believed that if the King wanted to reform the church, he should do so because he was appointed by a higher authority than the pope.
Our side did numerous things very well. First and foremost, we did a good job on some witnesses by discrediting them. We knew that this was an uphill battle, so we did our best to question witnesses and make their testimony sound as weak as possible. One thing that I believe I did very well was that I took information about Saint Ignatius and tried my best to use it against him. Also, we had plentiful information on our characters. A lot of us in the defense team knew our characters very well.
Our weaknesses were deep hindrances in proving our points. One of our weaknesses was that we had a lack of primary sources. We had a lot of information about everybody on trial and we could probably talk for hours as to why King Henry was innocent, however, we lacked first-hand sources proving those ideas. I know that if I had a primary source document on the ideas discussed in my questions towards Saint Ignatius, my points would have been a lot more effective. In addition, we were somewhat weak in anticipating the questions that the prosecution was going to ask us.
Overall, this exercise taught me a lot about the Reformation. It gave me great insight on why certain people were for or against Christianity and what steps they would take to prove that point. It also showed me how these people would have reacted if they were called up on a trial similar to this.
I feel that both groups did a good job in participating in the mock trial. Both sides were able to bring out points that really made for a nice trial. The prosecution brought up points such King Henry the VIII's act of heresy towards the church involving his divorce with Catherine of Aragon. Another point that was used was the fact the King Henry decided to create the church of England without the consent of the church in Rome or the pope. The defense I felt did a very good job trying to defend a person who in his time was being charged of a very serious crime. One of the points they made was that King Henry had all the right to form the church of England because he having the power of the divine right of kings was closer to god than the pope. Also King Henry VII's was only doing what he thought was best for his people by trying to have a male heir.
I feel that my side did a good job sticking with our plan and going at King Henry in the same way throughout the trial no matter how the defense tried to sway opinions. We did a nice job going at King Henry in different ways but at the same time trying to attack the same point, the act of heresy by divorce. We might have been a little weak in areas where the defense would attack our support with support of their own. By guessing what they would say it might have helped us to have answers to their reactions.
This experience was definitely something that helped me better understand some of the happenings of the reformation. I've gotten a better idea about what actions and charges would be placed on people who were prosecuted. I realize the importance of the church and religion in the reformation because those are two things that people based their whole lives on. If there was something wrong with the church than the kings and intellectuals felt that they need to fix it.
Both sides did a good job figuring out what the key questions were with each person. I thought the defense had good cross examination questions, like with Mary Queen of Scotts and Catherine of Aragon. However sometimes they weren’t as prepared, as say the persecution, like with the whole mix up with which witnesses they were suppose to put on trial.
The persecution, my side, did a good job questioning are own witnesses and even when we were cross examined, many of us knew our information well and were able to answer the questions thoroughly. However, sometimes our questions were too lengthy, when persecuting the defense witnesses, which let the defense witnesses slide through and escape answering what the true question was supposed to be asking.
The trial helped me understand, in a more manageable way, what was really happening back then. For example, at first with some of the witnesses, I didn’t really know their story and after hearing their answers to the questions asked, I did have a better understanding of their lives and how they were involved in the reformation.
In the mock trial of King Henry the 8th both sides effectively argued their side. The prosecution mainly focused on proving that the marriage that took place between King Henry the 8th and Catherine of Aragon was valid and that they should stay together and not have the marriage annulled. They said that because the marriage between the king’s brother and Catherine of Aragon was never consummated, therefore it was not valid, and King Henry the 8th was allowed to marry her. They also argued that the King was going against the Church by creating his own church, simply to create a male heir. Again they said he was going against the church because he was declaring himself the supreme ruler, and therefore saying that he has more power than the pope.
The defense was very successful in arguing all of its points. These included the fact that the marriage of a man’s widow to his brother is against the bible, as in the case of Catherine of Aragon. They also showed that the King did not get his power from the Church, due to the Divine rights of Kings he was directly appoints by God to his position rather than the pope who was elected by other humans. The defense also pointed out that without a male heir, the country could be, once again, plunged into a war, very similar to the War of the Roses. Lastly the defense stated that there were many benefits for all the people in the country, and between a strengthened government, and fewer taxes, the lives of all would be improved.
I was defending King Henry the 8th and I believe that as a group we did many things very well. We all worked very well together and were able to come up with creative ideas, such as bribing the judge, and although it didn’t work, it was a good idea. We also all worked hard and were able to build a case that might have held up in a courtroom today, because when being tried for heresy against the church and your judge and jury is the church, there was no was that he would have been found innocent.
My personal weaknesses were the facts that I both didn’t have enough time to effectively study Thomas Mores’ position on the situation at hand, and I didn’t have enough time to cross examine him (Maggie) on the stand.
Through this exercise I gained a much better understanding of the impact of the Reformation. I always knew that changing the religion in Europe was a big deal, but having one man, the King, basically force it upon his country never fully sank in. I also learned that there was always some form of corruption; wither in the King’s court, among his friends, or even in the Church. This project helped bring to light many of the problems that were both solved, and created, by the Reformation.
During our period's trial of King Henry VIII, the prosecution argued that Henry was a heretic because of his placement of the English Church above the Church of Rome and making religious decisions for himself and his country without consultation with the pope or other members of the Roman Catholic Church. The defense argued that Henry was not a heretic because he supported the religion through practice and the writing of "The Defense of the Seven Sacraments," which earned him the title Defender of the Faith.
My side, the prosecution, effectively proved that Henry passed the Act of Supremacy and Treason Act, which blatantly went against the Roman Catholic Church. It showed that Henry gave himself the ability to make religious decisions for himself and his country without the appropriate guidance of the pope, making himself and the country eternally damned. We used evidence to support these findings, although had a difficult time questioning witnesses from the defense about it.
A weakness that we had was the questioning. It was difficult to prepare questions that had a definite answer that the defense would give back. It threw a lot of people off, including myself. I think that our group did a good job preparing for our testimonies, but could have spent more time thinking about the questions that we were going to ask others.
This exercise helped my understanding of the Reformation because we presented differing opinions on the issue. It was clear that the church was corrupt and wanted people's money, however it was also shown that people believed that the church expressed the word of God, and was the ultimate power. The Reformation affected so many people because it gave another way to be close to God without having the corruption that many were against. The good things from Catholicism were used and the bad things were reworded in doctrines so that they would be similar but more accepted. This offered a religious route that people preferred because it asked for less dedication but still provided the things that were wanted.
In my opinion the trial did not go as well as I had envisioned it in my head. My position was Thomas Cranmer who was the lead defender. Although there were many downfalls each side was able to make some key points that actually made me rethink the preconceived notions that I had about the trial. The prosecution made it important to point out that because of the lack of consummation of Katherine’s original marriage and the proof of consummation in her marriage to Henry the schism form the church was a deliberate act of Heresy. Although I thought that this was a weak position to take because the consummation of Katherine and Arthur’s marriage is highly controversial, the prosecution did have strong evidence undermining Henrys moral fiber and painting him as a hedonistic ruler who disregarded the lives of women he claimed to love with reckless abandon. The defense argued that the church had no power over England as decreed by King Lucius I’s papal response to the question of roman Doctrine in the newly founded Britain.
Our side did a very good job in finding a variety of ways to prove that king Henry was not a heretic, while the prosecution only focused on one argument. I thought this was more beneficial because even if the prosecution refuted one argument there was another that we could rely on. We also did a very good job of finding historical information in which to support our cases. The key came when I discovered the evidence on king Lucius. That particular document was our key piece of evidence.
Our definite weakness was our lack of organization. I feel that my group had a wealth of good ideas that could have been better implemented but we could not touch base as much as I would have liked. I didn’t get upset about this as I might have because it was only our first trial so we had a lot to learn.
No matter the outcome of the trial I was still able to learn a great deal about all the circumstances and factors that played a part in the great reformation. I learned many important dates and more than I ever thought about King Henry the VIII. I think I learned more doing this than if I had simply just read about it to prepare for a test or quiz, because instead of just reading to be able to regurgitate information, I read for an understanding of the big picture. By doing this the knowledge was instilled in my brain and now I will be bale to apply it to other aspects of school and life. So although the trial didn’t go as smoothly as I had expected the main objective of understanding was still accomplished.
During the King Henry mock trial, both the prosecution and the defense presented key evidence defending their side of the issue. The prosecution focused on the fact that King Henry broke off from the Roman Catholic Church and also on the trouble he had producing a male heir. As the prosecution we called upon witnesses who we felt would help support our case, such as his former wives and popes who reflected the views of the Roman Catholic Church. The defense was successful in being well prepared during the cross examination period, and in doing this were able to pick apart some of the faults of the prosecution's witnesses. While Henry was still found guilty, the defense was able to take some of the validity of the RCC with them.
I felt, as the prosecution, that we were successful with the questioning of our witnesses. I think we presented witnesses that helped support our case, and used questions that helped display our evidence. By bringing in daughters and former wives of King Henry we were able to provide an insight to his personal life, while the Popes helped display the view of the Catholic Church. We already had a foundation with which to work off of, and by bringing in the correct witnesses we were able to build this foundation up.
As a group, I felt that our weakness was in our cross examination period. It appeared that we didn’t show enough background knowledge of our characters and thus we had a difficult time answering the defense’s questions. The defense also did a good job of exposing these weaknesses, making it difficult for us to maintain any validity to our arguments. I also felt that we were a little unprepared when we were cross examining the witness ourselves. We were unable to come up with clear-cut questions which would have helped us back up our evidence.
Overall, I felt that this exercise did a good job of helping me understand the impact that the Reformation had on European society. Through my experiences in the trial, and from what I was able to research, I could tell that King Henry was a very influential man, even if it was in a bad way. His separation from the RCC exposed the possibility of new religious views to the public and helped spark a Protestant movement. I also came away from this project with a new understanding of what each character (witness) brought to the Reformation. Based on everything that these revolutionists and popes did, the people of society developed in different ways, politically, socially, and religiously. Thus, the reform movement of the Renaissance played a big role in the development of European society.
I think that both the defense and the prosecution did we good job of presenting their arguments. The defense did well on arguing the fact that there is corruption with the Roman Catholic Church, so King Henry VIII was just trying to reform it and ended up making a whole new church. During their cross-examination, they were able to have religious figures admit to problems within the church, and that some type of reform needs to be done soon. The defense also touched on the fact that times are changing and that the church must keep up with it. I think they could have done a better job arguing this point though by emphasizing that new questions and views were arising about the RCC and that the church was not doing a sufficient job of answering to these new ideas. The prosecution did well on arguing that by making a new church with himself as the head of it, King Henry VIII was going directly against the Bible, thus going against the word of God. I believe the prosecution had the advantage of the time period where there were hardly any interpretations or questioning of the Bible, so everything in the Bible had a literal meaning. The Bible preaches one God, one church, and the prosecution made it clear that King Henry VIII was going directly against this. The prosecution also did a good job of accusing King Henry VIII of adultery, another sin within the RCC. The defense could not find any evidence to deny the fact that King Henry VIII did have an affair with Anne Boleyn while still being married to Catherine of Aragon.
I believe that my side, the prosecution did a good job of emphasizing papal primacy and the fact that King Henry VIII’s actions were going against the word of God. The trial took place during a time period when people had only begun to question the Church’s teachings and meaning of the passages from the Bible. This meant that up until this point everyone had a literal interpretation of the Bible, and it was unheard of to question the teachings of the Bible. This meant that as the defense we could easily say that by supporting King Henry VIII you were also denying the word of God by supporting a separate church from the RCC. During this time period, people also had high respect for clergymen and felt that the Pope was a direct representation of God and God’s teachings. I think we did well in making this point, and defending the Pope’s power when the defense talked about monarchial power and how it allows them to overrule the Pope and the church. I feel that the prosecution also made a solid accusation of King Henry committing adultery. There was even one point where the judge was going to add on the charge of adultery, but ended up not. Through King Henry VIII’s continuous divorces and by cheating on Catherine of Aragon with Anne Boleyn, it was easy to show that the only motive for marrying a woman was for a male heir. By having this attitude, it was evident that King Henry VIII wasn’t interested in reforming the church, and instead just wanted to ensure that there was a church out there that would allow him to divorce and remarry until he received his male heir.
The prosecution’s weaknesses were defending specific Biblical passages. Some passages that the defense used showed error in the teachings of those passages due to modern day thinking. This allowed for the defense to point out that the entire Bible is not necessarily correct. Other Biblical passages showed how God forgave men for their sins, and that King Henry VIII is a man too meaning that God should forgive him for his sins also. There were also weaknesses in the witnesses we chose to testify. Mary Tudor was Catholic and wanted England to be Catholic, but her actions in persecuting Protestants did not put her in the best place to criticize King Henry VIII’s actions. Pope Leo X was another one of the prosecution’s witnesses, and even though he was a Pope, he was not alive when King Henry VIII began his attempts to divorce from Catherine, and Pope Leo X also granted King Henry VIII the position of “Defender of the Faith.” This meant that Pope Leo X could not testify against anything that King Henry VIII had done in dealing with the divorces, and by granting him the position of “Defender of the Faith,” he even made King Henry VIII look like a good religious man.
This exercise contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation because I was able to learn a lot more about the major figures during this time period. The Reformation was a wide-scale movement and everyone, from Galileo to German noblemen, were affected and involved in it. I also learned the values and views of major figures during this time period that allowed me to see what concerns and questions people had regarding the church during that time. It also made me realize how important the separation of religion and state are. Up until than, European politics had been based on the church’s teachings and what the church wanted. By King Henry VIII separating himself from the church, he allowed himself to be able to rule the way he wanted to rule without fear of the church’s interference. I was also able to gain the mind-set of the majority of the people back then, and how the Bible ruled and affected every aspect of their daily life and how having a new church being created was a life-changing event.
During the trial of Henry VIII, I believe that both sides, the prosecution and defense, were fairly successful in arguing key components of each of their respective cases. The purpose of the mock trial was to prove whether or not King Henry VIII was guilty of heresy. The prosecution succeeded in proving the heresy in Henry’s actions by calling as witnesses various representatives of the church, such as popes and other leading Catholic figures. The defense was successful in supporting King Henry’s reasoning behind his divorce from Catherine, a key argument. They used Roman law to help back Henry’s cause, because Catherine had been previously married to Henry’s brother, Arthur. The defense also disproved the prosecution’s argument that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had never been consummated.
My side during the trial, the defense, was successful in not only proving that Henry had the right to divorce Catherine, but that the English King was not subject to the authority of the pope. We accomplished both of these by not only using key witnesses, but by submitting evidence, which I believe helped our case immensely. We utilized a papal document that undermined papal authority in comparison to that of a monarch, as well as a few other primary documents to prove Henry’s innocence.
However, the defense was particularly weak in various arguments. This included our argument that Pope Clement VII was under the influence of Charles V when he excommunicated King Henry VIII. We questioned various witnesses of the prosecution about this, who, of course, either sided with the prosecution or refused to answer questions about Clement’s actions. I believe we could have used our ability to cross-examine these witnesses more toward our defense of King Henry’s charge of heresy. In addition, although we proved that Henry VIII had the right to divorce Catherine, we had no support for his secession from the Catholic Church. It was an irrational move that proved difficult to provide reasoning for.
Overall, I believe both the prosecution and the defense had their respective strengths and weaknesses, even though, in the end, Henry VIII was proven guilty.
The defense was successful in presenting the information about illegitimate marriages. The documents and passages that were presented by the defense accurately showed that Catherine of Aragon’s marriage was indeed illegitimate to King Henry VIII, thus allowing King Henry have the right of divorce.
The Prosecution proved the actions of King Henry VIII were indeed Heretic. The prosecution showed that King Henry VII actions to continually defy the church were wrong. The prosecution also showed many of King Henry’s actions were for his own selfish reasons like divorcing his wives so he could have a boy heir.
My side really made use of documents and primary sources. We used a lot laws that supported Kings Henrys Divorce and proving Catherine Aragon was already married to King Henry’s brother. Our side also showed that many of our witness weren’t heretics but Christians.
My weakness was that I tried to connect my cross examination witness with another person. I tried use like a chain of events starting from Charles V and ending at Henry VII. My question started as questions towards Charles V but then got away from me and became about the Pope. I could’ve used the question about Charles V’s actions on Lutheranism but I hoped to do more with my initial questions. When I saw my question failed I should’ve switched questions.
From this experience I learned how blind sited the church is and how heresy is anything the church wish it to be. The idea of divorce is so complicated in the past and getting divorced can mean terrible things but these days divorce is as common as candy and practiced happened. What I gathered was the overwhelming control of the church and the power it had gained.
Trial of Henry VIII
The trial the defense was destined to loose.
By William Si
In these past couple of days, we have put King Henry VIII on trial for heresy. Although one has to lose during the trial, both sides had fought their case wonderfully. With research, both sides had brought up some good points. Although some evidence pointed right to heresy, our group, the defense, tried to make key points toward our defending the king. These points range from the degrading the Church in cross examinations to different key points of why the king was justified. Some of the points argued was the divine right of kings, need for a male heir, why can't the king make a new religion, he was only reforming the church, and the church was made up of humans. For the prosecution, many great points were made as well. They used their witness well to portray how King Henry was immoral and only broke up with the church only for his needs. Bring up facts such as adultery as well as many other stuff also helped in prosecuting him.
Our side, being the defense, did well in trying to get the point across. In both our examinations , we enforced the divine right of kings verses the church who is made up by humans who can make mistakes. From different witnesses, we got useful information that many people at the time were for the church but wanted reform. As for me, I also tried to enforce some points such as the need for a male heir. Specifically, for the cross examinations, we tried to target the people and to a point, put words in their mouths.
Although we did good at being a defense, we also had our weaknesses. To start things off, fighting this case was useless for us because the court would find King Henry guilty no matter what. Moving on, some other weakness were due to poor organization and un-preparedness. Mod. European History is harder than I had expected but although working as a group really helped, I have to say I had a hard time really finding facts that can truly support our cause. Other mistakes we had made were also small mistakes such as asking the wrong questions and sometimes hesitation. However, overall, we had tried to script our questions and cross examinations out to try to add onto the defense.
For me, the mock trial had added on to my understanding of the reformation. It allowed us to research and find different view points of people and how they thought of the time and impact.
As others had found, when researching history, it is often that the learning comes from indirect sources instead of primary ones. Also, by studding this court case, we can see how the church works and thinks through the different witness such as the different popes called on the stand. Anther main point of the reformation was the corruption that took place as seen on both sides. From the Church for indulgences and other artifacts and the king of heresy, annulments, and adultery as well as others. From the trial, we can see a broader prospective on how each piece fits in like a puzzle in history.
One last thing we have learned from the trial was that bribing, in the cases of judges such as Mr. Kurby does not work. Although $1,116,920 was a lot of money in history, the fine catheadrel that could have been built from it would not have saved King Henry's life.
(It may have saved his soul though...)
In our mock trial of Henry VIII, both the Defense and the Prosecution teams presented some very good points in their cases. The main arguments of the Defense were that the marriage of Henry and Catharine of Aragon was illegal in the first place since it was illegal to marry the widow of one’s brother and there was no proof, besides Catharine of Aragon’s testimony, that her marriage to Arthur had not been consummated. Henry VIII needed to produce a male heir in order to avoid a dispute over the throne, which might lead to another civil war in England. The Church needed reform; Henry VIII’s aim was to reform the Church and he was only doing what was best for the English people. He was above the pope since he was appointed by God, whereas the pope was appointed by humans, and so Henry did, in fact, have the power to break away from the Church and execute those reforms. The main points of the Prosecution were the marriage was legal because Catharine of Aragon’s previous marriage had not been consummated, and since King Henry was married under the Catholic Church, his marriage could only be dissolved by the Catholic Church, and so he committed adultery. Henry only broke away from the Church to serve his own greedy desire to produce a male heir and continue his lineage. The Church may have needed reform but it was the job of the pope to execute reform; it was not necessary for Henry to break from the Church, nor did he have the power to do so. The pope is the supreme head of the Church and above the king because he is elected by holy officials who serve God, and so he is chosen by God; therefore, going against the pope was going against the word of God. Henry was a heretic for going against the pope, going against the Bible, which called for one church, and for cutting off England from Rome, and denying the English people the sacraments.
Our side, the Prosecution, successfully proved that Henry VIII committed heresy by going against the Church and the pope. We came up with many good arguments, as stated above, that refuted those of the Defense, especially in our closing statement. However, there were some arguments that they posed that were hard for us to argue, for example, the fact that a male heir was needed in order to avoid a possible civil war in England. Also, it was hard to defend ourselves and to put a positive spin on some of the corrupt actions of our figures that the Defense accused us of, such as the fact that Mary Tudor committed murder or that Pope Paul III used his powers to further family interests. Also, we rested our case too early, and we might have been able to help our argument if we were able to recall witnesses to the stand. Personally, my cross-examination responses were weak. I had a difficult time coming up with arguments to counter those of the Defense when I was put on the spot and under pressure, but I found that afterwards, I was able to come up responses that may have helped the Prosecution’s argument.
The mock trial helped me greatly in developing a deeper understanding of the Reformation, particularly the English Reformation. It helped me to better understand and remember the different important figures who were involved, what their views were or might have been on the Reformation, and their contributions to it. I learned much more about them than I would have otherwise from just reading the textbook or the primary source articles. I gained more insight into the causes and effects of the Reformation, and I was able to see the arguments on both sides—both the positive and negative effects of the Reformation. All in all, this exercise definitely helped very much in studying the Reformation.
I felt that the defense was very successful in arguing that the king had more power than the Pope. Not only did each witness from our side successfully convey that, but we managed to get a few of the prosecution witnesses to say it. It was especially effective when Pope Paul said that the king had the “reason and the power” to reform the church. We also used quotes from the Bible to prove that there was precedent that the king was appointed by God and thus could not be judged by man. The prosecution did a good job showing that the marriage to Catherine was not successfully annulled. They did a good job supporting that, showing that because they were married in a Roman Catholic Church, the marriage could not be annulled in a different church.
Our side, the defense, did a good job showing that the king had more power than the Pope, as I mentioned in the last paragraph. We also did a good job showing that Henry was doing what was best for his country, because without a male heir the country would have plunged into a civil war. Also, the church caused high taxes and divided loyalties among the people of Britain. We also showed that Martin Luther was never killed because of his heresy, so if the originator of the movement wasn’t killed, how could a follower?
Our major weakness was that we couldn’t prove that the marriage with Catherine was invalid. That was important to prove, because if the marriage was invalid it would have meant that the Pope would have been wrong, and therefore it would have been okay to go against the church. Another weakness was us (and by us I mean me) almost admitting to the fact that Henry was an adulterer. That would have added another charge onto the King, and it would have been a disaster.
This contributed to our knowledge and understanding of the Reformation because it showed us the true scope of the events. It really showed well how this movement was started by an unknown and had moved all the way to one of the most powerful men in the world. We also got a taste of how it would shape European politics for years to come through wars, especially in the Holy Roman Empire and the Germanic states.
Ryan Kipfer
10/4/07
Over the past three days our class participated in a mock trial of King Henry VIII of England on the grounds of heresy. I took the position of Desiderious Erasmus a Dutch reformer of the 1500’s and argued on the side of the prosecution. During the course of the trial each side made some very key arguments. The prosecution argued that Katharine of Aragon’s marriage to Henry’s brother Arthur was not consummated due to the fact throughout their six month marriage Arthur was very sick. The prosecution also pointed out that Henry and Katharine’s marriage was clearly consummated because they had multiple children, thus the abandoning of the Roman Catholic Church and the establishing of the Church of England was clearly an act of heresy. On the other hand, the defense made good points in arguing that Katharine and Arthur’s marriage was consummated due to the fact that they were put to bed the first night-a common saying of the era concerning the act of intercourse- and the fact that Arthur did brag to his friends about the wedding night saying he was “in Spain.”
My side, the prosecution, did a few things well in trying to get King Henry convicted of heresy. We argued that he wrongfully revolted against the RCC after his request for an annulment from a consummated marriage was denied as well as pointing out that his creation of a new church with himself as the head was undoubtedly an act of selfishness and heresy because the pope is the one and only true head of the church. I also believe that our group did a good job at answering cross-examination questions and did not get trapped by the defense.
Our side also had many weaknesses, though. First off, unlike the defense we had very little textual support. We could have used the Act of Supremacy and the Treasons Act against the defense but instead we relied on common sense and simple answers to prove our points. Also, no research was gathered that could really corner the defense, in other words, we had very little questions that would force the defense to turn on King Henry. Although this did not hurt us very much, it did not serve a major purpose in our proving the charge of heresy just. Also, I found that our cross-examination questions tended to be extremely long and rather unrelated to King Henry and heresy.
The trial contributed a lot to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation because I learned, in more detail and depth, how it started, who started it, and how it was “resolved” for lack of a better word. I also learned background things about the Reformation such as facts on certain people who played highly important roles that were not commonly known. I was also able to better understand both sides of the argument of reform and heresy as well as how this entire event affected Europe.
*Mr. Kirby, this blog was written on Thursday but I was unable to log on to the school computers to submit it. I had to print it out and then retype it at home where I was finally able to change my password and submit it. I apologize for the lateness of my response and any inconvenience to you it may have caused.*
In the class debate over King Henry’s heresy both sides argued valid points and had they’re strong moments. Both sides were, fore the most part, successful in conveying their questions and their key points. The church relied on showing the good they had done and they pointed out many key details that slowed our defense. One such comment was that the defense of the seven sacraments was written far before the split from the church, and that it didn’t change the fact the king had denied the pope. The defense was very successful in showing the corruption in the church and how the king still believed in catholic ideals. The defenses questioning of Pope Leo’s artifacts and Pope Gregory’s illegitimate child are both fine examples of this. They also showed that the king had attempted to keep catholic principles in the government and also showed that he still considered himself a devote catholic, not a protestant. Both groups were successful in conveying these ideas to each other and had very good key points.
Our side was that of the defense and we did several things well. One of the most important things we did was to get the church to admit to corruption. Upon questioning Pope Leo had admitted to having a mistress and creating borderline anarchy among the people of its nation. In addition the prosecution also said the pope was not infallible, which helped us greatly. We tried to point out the flaws in the church and were fairly successful. This allowed us to justify King Henry’s break away from the church because the church itself was untrue to itself. We were also able to show that the pope at the time was under outside influences and could not rule effectively and in a christen manner. The defense was also able to show reasons for all of the annulments to all his wives. Also when being cross-examined we were successful at answering without hurting our own goals. These things helped our side greatly.
The defense, while successful in some areas, was weaker in others. Perhaps one of our greatest weakness was our cross-examining. Though in some instances this was our better skills, in others it could have been improved. Some of our questions were easily turned against us, or did little to help our case. I feel that some more time could have been spent on preparing for that. My personal weakness was that I brought up a subject I did not know enough about and used a reference from the future. The defense also failed to prove that just because the church was corrupt, that King Henry’s decisions and actions weren’t heresy. We simply proved that the church itself was no better. Over all I think a bit more time preparing and better organization would have solved most of these problems.
This project better helped me understand the formation, by showing me both sides and doing it a way that made it interesting. Through the witness it showed not only the Church’s and King Henry’s view but also of those it affected. It provided a wider and more complete view than a book or reading would have. It showed the vastness of the impact and how it affected the culture and almost all aspects of European life at the time. This exercise also had research the reformation, but did it in a way that made us look forward to it. It did this by making it interactive and adding a little bit of competition between the two groups. This exercise was very successful in expanding my understanding the reformation.
The defense and prosecution both had a compelling argument and counter argument. Key elements successfully utilized by both sides include effective presentation, thorough counter cross examination, and the usage of evidence; although one side clearly used more than the other. The prosecution I believe lucratively used Henry’s misdeeds and disloyalty to his wives to engage the court and sway the judge their way. While the defense focused on proving that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and thus their claims and accusation were not valid in the eyes of god.
The defense, my side, excelled in presenting facts, counter examining, and gracefully dodged counter examination questions that were meant to denounce the arguments that the defense were presenting. With every witness, it seemed that we had questioned every aspect of that person’s life, and how it supported the argument. We also successfully cross examined the prosecution witnesses, some of whom did not understand their character as much as they should have. Thus, when counter questioning the prosecution witnesses, we were dominant and unwavering in our questions, and even more effective in connecting the answers we received to proving Henry VIII innocent. During our own counter examinations, we answered in our own favor; and this sometimes meant stalling for time; which is how a smart person would play the game, there is not against rule that, one cannot circumvent questions.
There were flaws in the defense; however, not much was gathered on Thomas More; their chief prosecutor, and some of our questions were vague, and had to be clarified by the judge. Some of the cross examination did not go as well as I had hoped, although the majority of the people knew what they were saying.
This exercise presented many evidences and primary resources; Bible, and allowed me to see the flaws in the church, as well as the reason why a reformation was brewing up. Thus, being given a bunch of facts, I was able to come to my own summary and analysis of what was going on, who was corrupt, and why things were happening. I also learned a bunch about Henry VIII, and his break from the Catholic Church, he appears to be an important historical figure, an important historical figure with a lot of women.
What Key Elements was each side successful in arguing?
The defense was successful in arguing that King Henry VIII did have justification for his actions, as his power is, according to the "Divine right of Kings," sanctified and blessed by God. The defense also made the point that King Henry's Marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never legitimate, citing the Book of Leviticus.
The prosecution argued that King Henry's actions were directly opposed to the Church, and establishing himself as Head of the Church of England was an act of Heresy. They claimed that King Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never officially annulled, as it never had been by the catholic church, which meant that King Henry was also committing adultery with his other "wives."
What did your side do well?
Our side (defense) did a good job of supporting our arguments, especially through use of the Bible, which helped weaken the idea that King Henry was guilty of heresy. When we claimed that the Marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not legitimate we used the Book of Leviticus to support this. When we stated that the King has authority over the church, we supported this with The Book of Romans.
What were your weaknesses?
When under cross-examination, we had some difficulty answering the questions without incriminating ourselves. This is likely due to the fact that both sides asked rather leading questions, and the matter at hand is a very opinionated one that leads to futile back and forth arguing, which occurred several times.
How did/did this exercise contribute to your understanding of the impact of the Reformation?
This contribution helped my understanding of the contribution because of the research it required me to do on the important people of the reformation. I learned the motives of King Henry VIII for establishing himself as the head of the Church of England, and having to answer questions as he would allowed me to do more than simply memorize the information.
What Key Elements was each side successful in arguing?
The defense was successful in arguing that King Henry VIII did have justification for his actions, as his power is, according to the "Divine right of Kings," sanctified and blessed by God. The defense also made the point that King Henry's Marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never legitimate, citing the Book of Leviticus.
The prosecution argued that King Henry's actions were directly opposed to the Church, and establishing himself as Head of the Church of England was an act of Heresy. They claimed that King Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never officially annulled, as it never had been by the catholic church, which meant that King Henry was also committing adultery with his other "wives."
What did your side do well?
Our side (defense) did a good job of supporting our arguments, especially through use of the Bible, which helped weaken the idea that King Henry was guilty of heresy. When we claimed that the Marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not legitimate we used the Book of Leviticus to support this. When we stated that the King has authority over the church, we supported this with The Book of Romans.
What were your weaknesses?
When under cross-examination, we had some difficulty answering the questions without incriminating ourselves. This is likely due to the fact that both sides asked rather leading questions, and the matter at hand is a very opinionated one that leads to futile back and forth arguing, which occurred several times.
How did/did this exercise contribute to your understanding of the impact of the Reformation?
This contribution helped my understanding of the contribution because of the research it required me to do on the important people of the reformation. I learned the motives of King Henry VIII for establishing himself as the head of the Church of England, and having to answer questions as he would allowed me to do more than simply memorize the information.
Each side had several effective elements they used to support their claim, although both sides also had a main argument which they used as their strongest support. The prosecution depended strongly upon the statement that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur was not valid and therefore Henry could not divorce her on such terms. The prosecution did a good job bouncing back when the defense tried to write off their argument as weak. The defense’s strongest argument was that the English monarch was entitled to rule his own country and its church rather than letting his country be ruled by the Pope in Rome.
As a member of the defense, I believe this argument was our strongest because it was based on solid written material rather than simply on the words of a few people. I also think our side did well by looking into several arguments beyond this, as well as address the arguments of the prosecution.
One of my weaknesses was that I should have written out more in preparation for my witness. Quick notes would have helped me answer my cross examination questions more thoroughly. Also I think I could have reworded my questions for the cross examination Catherine of Aragon to better support the defense argument.
By doing the trial, I was able to understand and connect all the intricate events of Europe at the time of the Reformation.
Throughout the trial charging King Henry VIII with heresy, both the prosecution and defense presented valid arguments. Each side created strong, factually supported statements that were only enhanced by the information presented by their witnesses. The key points that each side was arguing were clear. The prosecutions key points that they were successful in arguing was that King Henry VIII usurped the power of the pope and divorced his wife, Catherine of Aragon, only to satisfy a personal whim. The defense was successful in arguing the key point of the clarification of consummation. Each witnesses questioning and factual evidence centered on proving the marriage was in fact not consummated or legitimate. They fought to prove that by Catherine being married to Henry’s brother Arthur, previously, the marriage between Henry and Catherine was not legitimate.
I supported the prosecution side by presenting helpful evidence as Thomas More. After listening, and supervising, the information presented in our case, I feel our strongest aspect was our progression of witnesses. We were careful to order our witnesses in particular succession. Our argument began with one of our strongest witnesses, Pope Leo X, whom Henry wrote a book to known as the Defense of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther. This started off our presentation with forceful and strong evidence backing up our claims made in the opening argument. As we continued through our witnesses, we made sure to have some kind of relation between the preceding and following witnesses to one another. Whether it was the information they were presenting, a background relation, or an order of weaker to a stronger witness, we made sure the followed in a structured manner. Another part of our argument I felt was extremely strong was the group member’s knowledge of each of our figures. Each one of us did extensive research and used knowledge we may have already known to create an accurate picture of our figures part in Henry’s trial. I feel that this is evident in our questioning and most importantly our cross examination. When questioned during cross examination, we did not hesitate and created accurate statements. We were able to help one another as well in the process of research as well. Our group members were open to bouncing ideas off one another. We each respected each other’s ideas and opinions on different subjects that arouse during the preparation for the trial.
One thing I felt that we as the prosecution could have worked on was creating more direct arguments. Our overall argument presented in the opening argument was strong but we faltered at times when it came to relating it directly back to our witnesses. Some of the questions we created were vague. I feel this could have only been fixed if presented with more time to research, plan, and organize. Another aspect of our argument that we could have worked on was the presentation of hard evidence such as documents or specific readings. Only a few of our witnesses provided direct readings or quotations from their figures or others related. Once again, I feel that this could have only been fixed if we had more time to research. This would have only strengthened our argument. This would have created the more direct argument that I felt we were lacking at times. It also helped me grasp each figures view points on the reformation.
This trial was key in helping us understand the reformation and its impact on not only England but Europe and the RCC as a whole. We were able to understand and clearly pinpoint the motives of England’s split from the Catholic Church. I was better able to comprehend the arguments presented for the reformation and against it.
Overall, I feel that we as the prosecution achieved the goal we set out to prove. We also stayed true to what needed to be said and I feel, if it had been judged based on how each side presented their arguments, we still would have succeeded over the defense.
Each side was successful in their arguments in many ways. The prosecution strongly showed their case through their main points that King Henry VIII directly removed himself and his country from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. In doing so he created his own church, the Church of England, of which he was the head of. Through these actions he directly went against the papacy and doctrines of the church. Going against the doctrines of the church and, in turn, the Pope is clearly an act of heresy.
The defense side also showed their arguments well by illustrating that the papacy was corrupt, that in no place does the Bible even say that there is a Pope of the church, and that this split was actually for the good of England. It was also shown that the Pope’s decision to not give Henry the annulment from Catherine of Aragon, was because of political influence, and not simply on religion based ideas.
My side, the defense, in my opinion did a very good job of organizing the main arguments that would be focused on. Our group very rarely strayed from the main points we were trying to portray and worked well together in proving the specific points. I think that most of the defendants’ arguments tied well with each other which further proved out points. We were also pretty strong in asking questions in the cross examination that caught the other side off guard. Along with our strengths, I also think we had some weaknesses. For example, there were a few times when it seemed we were slightly unprepared in the questions being asked, and it would take a few minutes before someone was called up to the stand. Another weakness we had was in some of out cross examinations. Several times the answers our side gave to the questions being asked did not actually answer the question, but skirted around it.
I feel that this trial contributed a very large amount to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation. When reading through information, it had to be completely learned and not memorized or of a light understanding, or else I would not be successful in the trial. It helped me to see how much of an impact King Henry VIII actually had on England. This assignment also forced me to analyze the information rather than simply absorb it, which greatly helped. Listening to the questionings also gave perspective from different people in history, which was another tool in helping me to completely take in the information, on not just the Reformation, but even on different historical figures I would otherwise not know as much about.
The mock trial of Henry VIII was conducted with zeal and effective arguments from both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution, which I, as Thomas More, was leader of, sought to convict Henry of heresy from the pivotal fact that he had separated from the Church and formed his own institution. We also tried to prove that the effects of Henry’s split from the Church were negative for England; in particular, Protestant-Catholic strife was created amongst its people and a powerful enemy was gained in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. The defense’s main argument was that an act against the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t necessarily a heretic act against Christianity. They argued that the Pope and his Church were corrupt, and therefore a split from them was for the best.
Our side was successful in laying down the cold hard facts that proved beyond a doubt that Henry was a heretic. Although we may not have yelled or used British accents, I think our arguments carried themselves on their own strength. We were able to provide specific examples of his tendency to be immoral, which led to more examples of laws enacted and actions that Henry took to condemn himself as a red-handed heretic. Furthermore, specific details drawn from the questioning of future monarchs and before/after Popes highlighted main aspects to the negative effects of Henry’s Protestant Reformation. Each person got into character said what needed to be said.
Our side was weak when it came to fielding questions from the opposition. Rather than form opinions and testify according to how their historical character might have felt, many of our witnesses found themselves cornered and unable to say much. More confidence and knowledge of our characters may have better prepared us for that. Another weakness was in our questioning of the defense’s witnesses; on occasion our questions seemed hastily prepared and we had some difficulties stating evidence where we wanted to state it and getting down to actual questions.
This exercise helped me to see the extensive arguments of both sides regarding Reformation. With a head-to-head clash of groups, the main points, such as corruption of the Church, Papal authority, and the political and social consequences were stressed. The variety of perspectives was also enlightening. However, I think that both groups focused a little more towards the occurrence of Henry’s separation than the impact. Nevertheless, the impact was discussed and I was able to see valid discussion of both positive and negative effects.
The trial of Henry VIII had the objectives of either successfully prosecuting or defending the English king with facts and evidence that incorporated the ideas of the witnesses of the time (and not of the time) of his reign in regard to the king or the Roman Catholic Church. The main assignment was to declare what to charge him with and how to successfully condemn him on those charges. In contrast, the defense’s had to deliver successful ‘excuses’ for the innocence of Henry’s actions, as well as find fault with the argument of the prosecution. Most importantly, the trial was a chance to research historical backgrounds of different witnesses and the turbulence of the ‘religious wars’ of the 1400’s, as well as develop our techniques of persuasion.
What elements did each side do well on?
Prosecution-
Both sides carried out the basic requirement of a condemnation or a defense statement as layout for the rest of the trial. The prosecution (my side) attacked Henry for both his conduct as a king liable for the salvation and ‘happiness’ of his subjects, for his responsibility to be subservient to the Pope, and for (as expected, and upheld by the actual historical papal charge of excommunication) his divorce with Catherine of Aragon. Not centering only on Henry’s act of nullifying his marriage sacraments as a demonstration of heresy opened new avenues for the prosecution to attack Henry on what him ‘a bad king’ as well as ‘a bad man’. Regardless of the state of Henry’s marriage to Catherine and his personal morals, his un-repenting actions after the excommunication doomed many devout Catholics in his country. This would mark him as an insensitive ruler and a king who went against the original theme of the honor bestowed on King Lucius, which was the pope’s wish that Lucius uphold his realm by ruling justly and thus with the favor of God. In a number of ways, the prosecution could have determined that King Henry was not a just ruler, and would thus have to be stripped of throne and divine favor. However, it must be pointed out that many kings were not just (in the John Locke sort of definition of the word), and laid harsher despotic rules than the Act of Treason. However, the prosecution must close their eyes (in a sort of stubborn, feigned righteousness reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church itself) and persecute Henry’s actions as wretchedly unwarranted and heretical. The prosecution’s argument was well rounded and reasonably believable, even if we lacked some emphasis or time to support it fully.
To chip in with an admiring word for the defense, attacking the first marriage of Catherine to Henry’s brother was a good approach (although predictable in its necessity). By hinting at incest, and blaming the Roman Catholic Church for endorsing such an ‘impure’ marriage, the consummation of the marriage of Catherine and Henry (a lost cause for the defense in denying this fact) can be viewed as immoral before it even happened. Furthermore, bringing in the doctrine with specific words from an earlier pope to the first Christian king of Britain, Lucius, was a valiant attempt at justifying the charge the prosecution put on Henry for ‘usurping the power of the pope’.
I feel that, overall, some arguments for Henry’s innocence or guilt could have been presented more clearly, and certain points stressed more than others to achieve a massive blow to the other side. For example, the motives of King Henry’s action to split with the church could have been lured out and condemned by pointing out the similarities of the Anglican Church’s doctrines with that of the RCC. Specific doctrines and sacraments that are similar or identical would refute any Protestant claims that the king was sincerely trying to reform Christianity for the better. Also, our question posing in cross-examinations was perhaps too verbose and long-winded. This depreciated both the time and the efficiency of our arguments. Insufficient time led to some crucial points or witty turnarounds to transform into missed opportunities. Also, I feel that the class could have delved more deeply into the rich characters of the figures around Henry, and not just Henry and his actions. Although we dabbled in Protestantism vs. Catholicism, a look at other ideas and shifting cultural patterns of the time, such as humanism, could have made the court experience more vivid and realistic—and led the class to understand the underlying tensions of the two sides and subdivisions of important people within the defense and prosecution. However, it must be stressed once more that the time and research of this trial was limited.
The trial of King Henry VII was very successful in showing us how to research one side of a topic, and how to defend that side with substantial information. Both the prosecution and the defense were successful in arguing different points. I think that the defense had a few key elements that really proved their point. The first point that the defense was successful in arguing was the fact that Henry had the right to break away from the church according to the letter that the Pope wrote to the first Catholic King of England. It stated that the King did not need the permission from the Papacy to establish the Church of England. I think this was really important to the defense’s case because it showed that Henry had the right to break away from Papal Supremacy. The defense also argued that Catherine of Aragon’s first marriage was consummated, which would have made her marriage to King Henry illegal. This was important to the case because if the marriage was illegal, the Pope should have allowed them to have an annulment. I think these two arguments were the key elements to the defenses case. The prosecution also had key elements to their side of the case. The arguments that they used showed all the bad things that King Henry had done in his life, and they showed how he could be viewed as a heretic.
I was on the defense side of the case, and I think we had a few strengths that really showed the faults with the prosecution’s case. The first thing that I thought we did very well was using historical documents as evidence to show that all of Henry’s actions were not completely wrong, and that he did have many people’s support. Another thing that we did well was preparing our witnesses with questions that explained Henry’s acts and showed how Henry’s actions could be justified. One of the other strengths that the defense had was forming our position on substantial information, and showing that the prosecution’s stance was based on opinions and not actual facts.
Although I think our side did very well, we had a few weaknesses. One of our biggest weaknesses was cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses. I think this was our major problem because during our cross-examinations the witnesses had answers that ruined the stance we were trying to take on the case. This may have been because we hadn’t researched the characters in enough depth. Another weakness that we had was being cross-examined. Some of the witnesses had to answer really difficult questions, and some of the answers actually incriminated King Henry even more.
This trial definitely impacted my understanding of the Reformation. The trial made us look into lives of many different characters, which gave us a lot of different points of view on the Reformation. I think the trial also showed us how radical the Reformation was, and allowed us to see the impact that the Reformation had on many types of people.
Both the prosecution and the defense did a very good job with their side of the case. The prosecution was sucessful at arguing certain key elements. Some of these elements were that they emphasized that King Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was consummated, while her marriage with King Henry VII's brother wasnt consummated. Anothere key element that the prosecution did a good job at arguing was that King Henry VIII was a heretic because he created his own church and that went against the Roman Catholic Church.
The defense also had a some key elements that they were sucessful at arguing as well. They argued that Catherine of Aragon and King Henry's brother's marriage was consummated, and that King Henry VIII was unaware of this at the time of the marriage.
I was on the side of the defense. The defense did a very good job at arguing that Catherine of Aragon's first marriage to King Henry's brother was consummateed, so King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon's marriage wasn't legal. We also did a good job at proving that church King Henry VIII created ended up benefitting European society in the future. Some weaknesses we had as a group were that our questions for our witnesses and the cross-examination weren't as strong as they could have been. My weakness was that I could have found out more about Galileo's trial where he was found guilty of being a heretic himself.
The exercise contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation because we put the conflict between King Henry VIII and the Roman Catholic Church into a cituation that was both educational and fun. Each side had to do research about their person that they were cross-examining and the person they "were." We learned more about the reformation and the different roles people played during it through a fun activity.
The key elements that I think the Prosecution did well in arguing was that we really pointed out that King Henry was created his own religion which made him a heretic. And also the fact that King Henrys marriage was never consumated. I think that the defense made a good attempt to try and state the fact that the Papacy was too controling and needed to break away. However I think the prosecution was very strong in their points and I think when it came to for the cross exaimination, the prosecution did very well with the questions they came up with for the defense witnesses. When the witnesses on the prosecution side were cross examined they always had an answer and never stumbled for a response. On the other hand when the witnesses for the defense were cross exaimned by the prosecution many of them didn’t have an answer to give and stumbled over their words. I don’t think they were prepaired at all for the cross exaimination. When the defense cross exaimened the prosecution witnesses, the questions they asked were sometimes not specific to the actual person. For example when King Philip the II was put up to the stand, he was asked if he knew whether or not his father was pressuring the pope, and king Philips response was to “you would have to ask my father that question”. Whereas the defense should have pointed out that he was married four times in an attempt to discredit him. The cross examination questions should have been better quality. To recap, the defense did a good job in trying to argue King Henry’s innocence but lacked the skills in cross examination. The prosecution did an excellent job in arguing King Henry being a heretic and also did good when it came time for cross-examination, however I think the prosecution could have even gone further to discredit the defense witnesses.
This excersise contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation a lot. I had the basic ideas of the Reformation but when we actually got to experience a trial it really opened my eyes. Another thing that really helped me understand was the fact that we got to be a key character and research that person and what that person’s ideas and thoughts would have been if they were really put on trial. For example I didn’t know much about King Philip II, but after researching him I found out that he had motives for marrying so many women and that he ordered the spanish armada to invade England. And the same goes for John Calvin whome I had to research for the cross examiniation. The whole trial of King Henry reinforced the point that the Papacy was corrupt and needed to be reformed and that’s why he split from the church to begin with.
In the mock Trial of King Henry VII
both sides had certain key elements to their arguments that were successful. For the Defense, they were somewhat successful in trying to prove that King Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never consummated and that the Kings acceptance of the Catholic church in the beginning was only for his own personal benefits. Their evidence was very hard to object to , because it was backed by concrete facts.
For the prosecution, some key success to their arguments came upon the proof that King Henry defended the catholic religion in the first place, and his split with the church had no spiritual significance. I believe that the prosecution did a good job trying to discredit Henry's religious movement as a spiritual one and more as his own personal gain
The prosecution side I feel did a thorough job during the trial when asking cross examination questions. (not answering them) It seemed like everyone did their research on the person they were assigned and really found a way to convert that information to direct attacks on the defense of King Henry.
As for weaknesses of the prosecution, the way the witnesses were organized, it made the case hard to follow. There was no relevance or transition from witness to witness. The calling was completely at random. If there were an order that was more logical, i believe that could have added to our presentation. Another weakness was that the prosecution was scattered. People were asking questions about his marriage, then there were other people asking about his religious views. It just seemed to be unorganized.
I believe this exercise is a great way to learn about how Reformation was changing Europe. I got to look at important figures of the time, and learn more about their views towards what exactly was going on during this time period. Also, it gave an exceptional point of view to the reformers of the time and their discontent with the Church. In addition, the trial also showed how the great Roman Catholic Church is slowly losing its grip on the European civilizations.
By doing our mock trial last week, those who were defending or prosecuting Henry VIII clearly researched and supported their arguments. One key element of the prosecuting side was that King Henry VIII did commit heresy by not letting Pope Clement VII state that his marrige was null and void. Since he was not following the rules of the RCC and gaining the popes recognition, Archbishop Cranmer went ahead and ruled that the marrige was void.
A key element of the defending side was the role of King Lucius. King Lucius went on a mission to establish Chrisitianty throughout Britain and the rest of Europe. He was given missionaries in order to do so and was named the first person to create Christianity. Since he invented the religion, it was safe to say that the King ruled all the lands and the people who abided to Christianity. By ruling the lands, the King was able to do whatever he wanted without the pope's concern. According to King Lucius, King Henry VIII didn't need annullment from the RCC.
Our side did a great job at finding new witnesses that proved King Henry VIII innocent. Unfortunatly, we weren't able to present them, but during our presentation, Archbishop Cranmer (Kyle) was able to include facts from our different researches and state useful findings in the opening and closing statements. For example, he used the Collectanea in the closing statement, which was a collection compiled by Thomas Cranmer and Edward Foxe specifically for King Henry VIII that gathered different documents that proved that he was innocent.
I would have to say our weakness was our organization. We didn't hand in the revised witness list in on time, so a bunch of people did research that they didn't have to do. Also, some of our cross examinations were statements instead of questions, and some of them didn't even pertain to the person we were cross examining.
I learned a lot about how the Reformation made such an impact on the European society. After I researched different figures, I saw that the RCC was separating and new people were coming in with fresh ideas about religion that people started to believe in, such as Martin Luther or John Calvin. As we participated in the trial, I understood who was actively involved in this case and the two debating sides
I believe that both the defense and the prosecution made good points in this case. The trial was to determine whether or not King Henry VIII committed heresy. I feel that the prosecution’s main points were that the divorce of Catherine of Aragon was never made legal, so therefore the point was proven that Henry VIII committed adultery. Also the prosecution made a good case that Henry VIII didn’t support the Protestant reformation. The last good point that was proven was how Henry VIII illegally created his own church and tried to be the leader of his own church, which was treason in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. The defense had some good points as well. They argued that Catherine of Aragon’s first marriage was never void. Also the defense used letters written from key witnesses to prove their point and also backed up their position with old laws. The defense tried to argue that these old laws overruled the church’s arguments and supported Henry VIII.
I felt that my side, the prosecution, did well in proving that Henry VIII’s divorce was illegal and that any wives he had after that was adultery. I also felt that the prosecution did a very good job in proving that the King’s new church was also illegal in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. However I felt that the prosecution did best in the cross examinations and we were able to discredit most of the defense’s witnesses. What sticks out in my mind was the cross examination of Frances I and John Calvin. I felt the weaknesses to our side were the questions we asked ourselves. Some questions didn’t back up our case as well as others, and sometimes we should have expanded further on an idea and didn’t. I felt this was true in that we asked only a few questions per idea and did not have the key primary source evidence to back it up, as it was mostly background information.
This exercise contributed greatly to my understanding of the Reformation. By doing the trial I was able to better understand the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants. I felt the trial represented in a broader sense the dilemma between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants, with Henry VIII as the protestants and Thomas More as the Catholics. I learned how the Roman Catholic Church was losing power at this time period and was continually being discredited by Protestants and other religious groups at the time. This trial made me see how one event led to another, how Henry VIII breaking away from the church impacted the history of England, how the reformation created new alliances and broke others, and basically how a new era was dawning in European History. A new era was in the making, one where the dominating control of the Roman Catholic Church was missing, and where state governments were taking control of all affairs.
Each side was successful in arguing key points in the mock trial. The prosecution was looking to prove Henry VIII guilty of heresy, and using key people and facts to support their position.Thw prosecution supported their argument by stating that Henry and Catherines marriage was valid, and that Henery had no right to declare himself head of the church.The defense was looking to prove Henry VIII not guilty and used facts such as Catherine and Henrys marriage was not valid becuase she was once married to Henrys brother.
My side was the defense and i feel we really showed that Henry VIII was not completely against that roman catholic church and his intentions for his nation were only for the betterment of peoples lives. The defense also made good points that Catherine and Arthurs marriage was consimated, so her marriage to Henry VIII was not valid.
Our teams weaknesses would have to be defending why Henry VIII killed so many of his close friends and wives. Also, our questions for the prosecution could have been more direct questions rather than statements.
This excerise really helped me understand that impact of the Refermation becuase of all the research each team had to do you really learned a lot. I learned so much about my character, Thomas Cromwell, and how he conrtibuted to this trial. I really understood why Henry VIII was on trial and how each character played a big role in helping or hurting Henry. While researching I found information on how this reformation affected the nation of England, and the Roman Catholic Church. Many people switched to protestant and were buying the lands takedn from missionaries to farm on. I realized how much the roman catholic church has changed so much from then until now and what an impact this trial made on the development of England.
Last week we did a mock trial of King Henry VIII in class on the basis of heresy. The prosecution, led by Thomas Moore, argued that Henry VIII went against the church by divorcing his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and creating his own church, the Church of England, as a way to satisfy his own personal needs. Archbishop Cramner led the defense who stated that Henry VIII was not a heretic.
The prosecution (my side) could successfully deject arguments the defense tried giving, because we were educated about our characters. Our improvisational skills could have been better, but for the most part we were able to answer questions. A few people on our team did an excellent job cross-examining the defense witnesses and really made them look like they lacked knowledge on their characters or poked holes into their arguments. While we had strengths, we also had weaknesses. Most of our arguments, like the marriage/divorce between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, were hearsay. All of our evidence was more of a “literature review,” because it consisted of secondhand sources and background information, whereas the defense used many primary sources and quoted them frequently. The defense was successful in defending Henry VIII’s reasons for divorcing his first wife and breaking away from the church. They repeatedly brought up the issue that the marriage between Catherine and Henry VIII was not consummated, and had letters and old laws which were quoted to make their argument more plausible.
This project truly helped me get a better understanding of the Reformation, because “hands on” activities allow people to participate and forces people to see issues from different perspectives, therefore giving them a better understanding. I believe I remember things more if I get to do activities like this. It was interesting to see how many people were against the Roman Catholic Church and the ideologies of the era. The actions of the Roman Catholic Church didn’t only affect the popes and religious aspects of people’s lives, but also Europe as a whole politically and socially.
What key elements was each side successful in arguing?
The prosecution did a great job of arguing the point that King Henry VIII went against the church’s rule. They clearly presented that the divorce was not OKed by the pope and that led to the excommunication. They were very forceful and confident in their arguments. The defense did a great job on their point of the marriage not being consummated. They fought this argument from many different people including King Henry VIII himself They also argued the point of King Henry VIII’s power coming from his peoples’ belief and not only from the pope.
What did your side do well?
My side, the defense, did a great job in presenting our information. I feel we were quite organized and very prepared for our questions and cross-examinations. We also did a good job of presenting our main arguments which were that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur was consummated, and that he King’s decision was well within his powers.
What were your weaknesses?
Our biggest weakness was our order of witnesses. They seemed unlinked and choppy and I feel that if this was different then we would have had a better chance at winning. An ordered witness list tells the story and presents ideas better than when it is scattered.
How did/did this exercise contribute to your understanding of the impact of the Reformation?
This exercise showed me that the Reformation was really a very large power struggle. The papacy wanted control but also the King felt that decisions should be made by him. It also unveiled a lot of informational about other characters in history that I never knew anything about.
The trial of King Henry VIII ended successfully for my side, the prosecution. We attacked King Henry for heresy, using the arguments that he divorced his wife and defied the church that had given him power. As Pope Gregory XIII, I emphasized the devastating long term affects of the reformation. This helped to highlight the injustice of King Henry’s actions and the lives it negatively affected for centuries to come.
The defense was at a considerable disadvantage, seeing as King Henry was very obviously guilty. They tried to argue that King Henry’s marriage was unjust from the start, because she was previously married to his brother. (This argument was countered by pointing out that the marriage was never consummated because his brother was ill for the short duration of their marriage.) The prosecution also argued that King Henry’s marriage was never consummated. This was a weak argument, seeing as several pregnancies occurred during the marriage.
As a whole, the trail was very successful (especially because my side won). The questions were both well prepared and extremely relevant. The questioning and cross examination was much less stressful than I had imagined, and I feel as though I learned quite a bit about King Henry VIII, Pope Gregory XIII, and the other participating characters.
In the Trial of King Henry VIII, I believe that the main point that the prosecution was able to argue was the fact that Henry had in fact truly split from the church when he created a new church of England. They attempted to show that splitting with the Pope by any means is heresy. The defense which was my side, attempted to show that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, and that King Henry didn’t go against Catholic doctines but merely the ruler of the corrupt Church. Both sides showcased these basic arguments fairly well in the examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses.
I believe that my side, which was the defense, was very successful in getting our major points across. I believe that through our use of biblical documentation to attempt to prove the Church as corrupt was effective. We also were able to successfully pull in some of King Henry’s various acts such as The Defense of the Seven Sacrements against Martin Luther and The Act of the Six Articles. These two acts helped to reinforce that fact the King Henry was not in fact a Protestant and was labeled as a “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X. I believe we also did well enthusiastically not only defending King Henry, but attacking the prosecution as well.
One weakness that the defense had was at some points we were a little unpreparred for the cross examination by the prosecution. Sometimes I felt that the prosecution knew more about our witnesses then we did.
This assignement greatly enhance my knowledge of the Reformation period. The conflict betweed church and state was much easier to understand when we were actually able to experience it. Through the use of intensive research I was able to go more into the thoughts and ideas of various Reformation contemporaries. This trial also helped me gain knowledge of how to find and analyze information efficiently. Also; I really just enjoyed the whole concept of the mock trial and I would like to do something similar in the future.
In the mock trial of King Henry VIII, both sides stated their positions and defended with much enthusiasm and used first-class evidence to support their claim. The prosecution began by stating their definition of heresy and declared that the act of breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church constitutes heresy. They also tried to prove that King Henry was sympathetic toward Protestants which in turn lead to the undermining of England’s political, economic and social situation. They brought in some Popes to provide support for their claims. The defense, my side, tried to move in another direction to defend the King Henry. We provided a definition of heresy which would help prove King Henry innocent. We also tried to discredit the Roman Catholic Church as an institution in an effort to prove that since the RCC was corrupt; splitting from it was actually a necessary deed. Overall our strategy was to say, before you point your fingers make sure there clean to the Roman Catholic Church.
I believe that my side, defense, did an excellent job in defending King Henry VIII. Our entire team displayed passion that you don’t usually see in a classroom. Everyone in the group presented their information and helped our cause in whatever way they could. From the very beginning, the defense had a clear-cut strategy that we were going to follow. This organization really helped us have a consistent and repetitive attack on certain aspects of the prosecution’s argument. When we cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, our questions were made in advance, however we also made questions up on the spot in response to answers during the prosecution cross-examination. We discredited most of the prosecution’s witnesses, and even made one say, “What does the Bible have to do with the Church?” Our on-topic questions were brutal because they exposed any lies the witness was carrying and helped further our cause. We especially discredited the Pope Leo and Pope Gregory which helped us prove that the RCC was corrupt. They stated that the Pope was infallible, but with our skillful cross-examination, we proved that the pope was in fact fallible, and one of the Popes admitted to being wrong at times which contradicted their argument. When it was our turn to present our witnesses, we developed questions for each witness to prove our case. We made sure each witness’ answer would support King Henry and also make the prosecution’s case less credible. Each of our witnesses provided evidence that supported our main reasons for King Henry’s acquittal, but each piece of evidence was different. I was especially proud of the way in which our group handled cross-examination from the prosecution. There a few questions in which we were stumped, however, overall our witnesses stood up to the prosecution and we weren’t backed into any corners. We also used objections well against the prosecution. Anytime the prosecution didn’t ask a question or was asking irrelevant questions, we objected. For each of our arguments, we used many primary source documents such as, the Bible, The Statue of the Six Articles, and the Defense of the Seven Sacraments. All of these positive steps by the defense, plus the passion and enthusiasm helped us build a solid case. As best said by Ben Henderson, “If we were actually defending King Henry VII in a real trial in the 1500’s, we would go down in history as being one of the greatest defenses ever!”
The biggest weakness on our side was the fact that no matter what, King Henry would be deemed a heretic because the Church is always correct. Even if the defense proved god did not exist, the church would still somehow win. Another weakness was sometimes we become overzealous, and we lost some professional decorum. Sometimes, when witnesses would fall into the trap we set, we would celebrate in exuberance that is not appropriate for a court of law in any century. Also, a few of the prosecution’s witnesses we didn’t prepare well enough for and some questions were vague and needed clarification. Also, at times we would lose train of thought in the middle of a cross-examination. But through all of our mistakes and weaknesses, we really had a good defense and did as best as humanly possible to defend King Henry VII.
This exercise helped make me understand the true effects and reasons behind the Reformation. During my research, I found a multitude of reasons that showed how much the RCC was corrupted and how a need for reform was imperative. It helped justify the Reformation in my eyes. This project was important because it gave a more hands on view of why this significant historical event occurred and justified it.
Both sides succeeded in their respectful arguments, the prosecution used the fact that Henry VIII split away from the Roman Catholic Church, and made his own church, the Church of England. Whether or not this was the right thing for Henry to do, for the good of England, it was an act of heresy, which the prosecution clearly pointed out. Henry went against the Pope and the Church, which was in fact an act of heresy, but the defense had some good arguments as well. They pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and what Henry did was in fact good for England. They also pointed out that the only reason Henry’s marriage to Cathrine was not annulled was because her cousin, Charles held very good standing with the Pope, even though their marriage was in fact incest.
My side was the defense, and in my opinion, we did a very good job in defending Henry. We used all our witnesses to our advantage, and questioned them well. Our biggest strength was our ability to prove that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, and that Henry was right in breaking away, even if legally it was heresy. We did this by our cross examinations of the Popes, Leo and Gregory, we pointed out their faults as Pope, as well as explained that the Bible never stated that there should be a Pope, nor that he (or she) should be the head of the Church. On the other hand, our side, although pointing out the good things Henry did, we could not prove he wasn’t guilty of heresy, because, in fact, he was. Henry did in fact break away from the Roman Catholic Church, which is heresy, so we failed in proving that he was not guilty of heresy.
This exercise contributed immensely to my understanding of the Reformation, by having to read and understand all the information I read in order to prepare for a cross examination caused me to learn the information more than just read and glaze over it. By preparing for the cross examination, it required me to get a much better understanding of the reasons behind why Henry broke from the Church, as well as how it effected the reformation. It also helped in my understanding of the future re-precautions of this break on England.
The defense as well as the prosecution was very successful in arguing various points in the mock trial. The defense was successful in arguing how the king is given his authority from God (Romans 13:1-3). Therefore the defense deduced that since God has allotted to the king his authority than he has every right to do what he sees fit in order to do what is best for the people. We also pointed out that Henry VIII’s main incentive to grant an annulment was primarily for the essentiality of a male heir, which would prevent another War of Roses from taking place in England, thus King Henry VIII was seeking the amelioration of his country and people. The prosecution, on the other hand, made a few good arguments such as the following: the king by breaking away from the church was denying the authority of the pope and consequently the Word of God, and how Henry’s break from the church fragmented the unity within Christianity.
I would by no means laud my efforts or my groups efforts to the extent that we could be labeled as people who were predestined to become lawyers, but I do believe that there were many strengths that our group had harbored. I believe that the defense was very organized in that we articulated what arguments we would present and how to intertwine those arguments within each characters perspective. I also thought that the defense for the most part had a decent grasp on their character as well as the Reformation as a whole, which is the basis by which all inductive reasoning could be built.
I believe that my main weaknesses was in that during my cross examination, I got so caught up with the words before and after the actual question that Erasmus was asking me that I missed what the actual question was. I also believe that I should have spent much more time ascertaining the questions the prosecution would ask me rather than spend time researching the various characters.
Prior to this Mock Trial of Henry VIII my understanding and knowledge of the Protestant Reformation was somewhat superficial. Sure, I knew what the Reformation was but I never thought in depth how it affected Europe as a whole. I was also able to articulate from this Mock Trial various perspectives, which disclosed the true character of certain historical figures. I also realized how the Reformation greatly affected the solidarity and unity of Christianity by forming some of the different sects that exist today.
There are many things that both the prosecution as well as the defense tried to prove during the mock trial of Henry VIII. Both sides presented as well as defended there views in a precise manner through the duration of the trial. The prosecution focused on proving the Roman Catholic Church having an affirmative impact on European society, as well as convicting Henry VIII with the crime of heresy. In contrast the defense proved how the Roman Catholic was both fraudulent as well as corrupt, the defense also attempted to prove the innocence of Henry VIII against the charge of heresy.
I believe that my side, the defense, was successful in many parts of the trail especially in pointing out the corruption of the church as well as the innocence of Henry VIII through the use of evidence from our research. In addition our side was also successful through having background knowledge on those characters who we represented during the trial.
I don’t believe that my side as a group had weaknesses however I do believe that individually we did have weaknesses. Among my individual weaknesses I believe I didn’t do as great of a job during the cross examination of Mary Queen of Scotts due to the lack of summarization I had done in my research which effected my questioning of the witness.
There are many ways that this trial impacted my understanding of the reformation. This trial made me understand the different points of views of various historical figures of this period and how they contributed to various changes in European society. For example the historical figure who I represented was Martin Luther, I learned as well as thought through his perspective on matters that concerned him regarding Catholicism as well as the emergence of Protestantism.
The prosecution’s biggest argument for Henry VIII being a heretic was that he went against the church and papacy by creating the Church of England. It was shown that Henry both opposed and challenged The Pope by creating such things as The Supremacy Act. The defense played off of the aspect of Henry VIII as the “Defender of the Faith” as opposed to his later acts against the Church. The defense down-played Henry’s attempts to separate from the Church as heretical behavior and tried to make it seem as though his attempts were for the greater good of the religion. Thus, he could not be a heretic.
Personally, I feel my side, the prosecution, was able to maintain a very strong argument against Henry VIII while the defense tried to make us out to be ignorant of the facts. Even under intense interrogation, my group was able to maintain their characters’ identities and to answer almost all questions with a very accurate depiction of how their personalities would have answered. This was the case with Catharine of Aragon, who showed how her horrible life with Henry had nothing to do with the case.
I think our biggest weakness was an inability to completely enter the minds of our characters. We all could have been a little more prepared; however, it is almost impossible to be utterly prepared for something such as this. We could not have truly gone into the minds of our characters and that posed the hardest challenge for the prosecution. Without being able to talk with these people, it was a little harder trying to decide how to answer some questions.
To be completely honest, this didn’t help my understanding of the reformation too much. All it really showed me was that the reformation was a time of emerging ideas and that even those with good intentions were prosecuted as evil or dangerous. It proved that even those with some brilliant ideas had to be worry-some of how they expressed them and that the Church interfered with a lot of noble people for the sake of staying in power.
I think that overall, both sides did an amazing job in presenting their cases. Both sides did a thorough investigation of their characters as well as those that they cross examined.
Throughout the trial, i found that the defense was more trying to disprove the prosecution rather than actually defend Henry VIII. I think that this is because in the back of our minds we knew that it was a lost cause. One of the Defenses downfalls was that we had a strong argument, but we could not honestly support our case, knowing that Henry VIII was indeed guilty. Much of our evidence could have potentially been put down had it not been for the superior organizational skills of the defense as a whole. By doing the amount of research that we did, we found that it wasn't what we said, but rather what we did not say that actually mattered.
One of the downfalls of the prosecution i felt was that they did not seemed as organized as they could have been. Their evidence was not concrete, and their cross examination for the most part, did not support their case, but rather strenghtened the case of the defense. I also feel that they did not follow true court procedures. In an actual court, one is supposed to ask one question at at time as to not confuse the witness, and to get a clear answer. When cross examining the wittnesses for the defense, they asked multiple questions at a time, therefore never getting a clear answer to support their case. When the prosecution was being examined, they also rambled on and on, and did not very often give a clear answer, or contradicted themself.
one of my personal weaknesses was that i spent so much time worrying about everyone else (i was the organizational person in the group) that i had less time to worry about myself. I feel that if i had spent more time preparing, i would have presented a stronger argument.
On the other hand, one of my personal strengths was being the organizational person in the group. I think that if i had not been organized, and made sure the group was on task, that we would not successfully gotten everything done that we needed to do.
the key elements that the defense was arguing was that Henry VIII was innocent of heresy, and was merely reforming the church. we were also stating that the king has power over the church by the divine right of kings, and therefore does not need to follow the church.
the prosecution was arguing that Henry VIII was guilty of heresy because he was creating a new church, committed adultury, and that the pope was chosen by GOD and GOD alone, and therefore had control over the king.
this project helped me understand the reformation much more. If i had not done so much research, i would not have known near as much detail about individuals as i do now. Also, i never knew how much power the church actually had on the people of the day. I never truly understood how radical Martin Luther and John Calvin were. And now i understand it all much better. I feel that this was a great project to do, and hope that every AP Euro class to come enjoys it as much as we did.
The mock trial of King Henry VIII that our class did, had strengths and weaknesses for both the prosecution and the defense. While the prosecution was more focused upon King Henry’s separation from the Roman Catholic Church and his adulterous lifestyle, the prosecution argued his innocence through his writings of The Defense of the Seven Sacraments and by saying that the Roman Catholic Church was flawed and corrupt.
I think that our side, the prosecution, was successful in questioning our own witnesses. It was helpful to have some of Henry’s former wives to question, because they obviously disagreed with his treatment towards them. The Pope was also a resourceful witness that benefited the prosecution, because Henry directly defied him by breaking off from the Church. We were well-prepared with background information on our characters, although it became more complicated when we were cross-examined.
I think that our main weakness as a group was when the defense was cross examining us. I have to credit the defense for coming up with some very intelligent and challenging questions, which left the prosecution a little bit confused and unsure of ourselves, at times. (For example: Saad’s cross examination of me made me so nervous that I started to draw unicorns.)
This exercise was a really helpful way for our class to learn about the Reformation, because we got to talk it out and hear what everyone else had researched. This made class even more interesting and helped contribute to our understanding of King Henry VIII and his influences on Protestant religion. Obviously, we could have just read this in a book, and taken notes, but with an activity such as this one, it makes it easier to understand what took place and how it affected the Papacy, the peasants, the royalty, and all of the other people in the region.
There were several strengths and weaknesses that each side had in the mock King Henry VIII Trial. My side which was the prosecution was very good at defending the church and showing the good that it did for the European countries which it presided over. In this trial it was not only important to provide evidence that Henry VIII was a heretic, but also to show how much better off England would be under the traditional Roman Catholic Church versus the Church of England. However, when it came to being cross-examined by the defense we didn’t do nearly as well. Several of our witnesses (namely Erasmus and myself Pope Leo X) contradicted themselves or were easily stumped and ha no response to the questions posed by the defense. The defense also had some difficulty in the cross-examination. Although they did quite well in cross-examining the prosecution the dodged questions or made up non-related answers when it was their turn to be questioned. Also, it was noted that both sides, (but more so with prosecution) asked questions that were too lengthy or had unnecessary long and complicated introductions that preceded them.
I found this project to be helpful in showing just how difficult it would have been to legally prove that Henry VIII was a heretic. It also helped me to understand how the English Reformation came about and effected European history. I also didn’t realize how connected religious and political alliances were. When cross-examining some of the witnesses I found that the two were basically one in the same.
In our mock trial of King Henry VIII, I feel that the prosecution and defense were efficient in arguing their cases. The defense was very successful in defending King Henry VIII about divorcing his wives. The defense justified King Henry VIII divorcing Catherine of Aragon by arguing that the marriage was invalid. This was one of the strongest points that the defense made. Another strong point made by them was when they stated that the king is closer to God than the pope. They said this because kings are appointed by God while popes are elected by people. They argued that the king should have more power than the pope because of this, and should therefore be able to reform the church. This is a very solid argument. Their last key element was arguing that the Church was corrupt and needed reform. The prosecution, which was my side, was successful in arguing that King Henry VIII was a heretic. We proved that King Henry VIII was guilty of heresy fairly easily. He went against the doctrine of the Catholic Church by committing adultery. We proved that he went against the doctrine of the Church by explaining that King Henry’s marriage with Catharine of Aragon was legal, since Catharine of Aragon’s previous marriage had not been consummated. Also, since King Henry was married under the Catholic Church, his marriage could only be annulled by the Catholic Church. Since it wasn’t, he committed adultery, which is heresy. Not only did we prove that he was a heretic, but we also proved that he was a terrible person. We argued that he divorced his wives for selfish and unjust reasons.
My side, the prosecution, led by Thomas More, was very effective in showing the faults in King Henry VIII. I believe we started to make some members of the defense question why they are supporting King Henry VIII. Since we had adequate knowledge about our characters we were able to answer the question that we were asked confidently. We also answered them as our characters would answer them. Although we were a strong group, we also had some weaknesses. My side’s major weaknesses mostly had to do with cross-examining. One of our major problems was that we strayed away from the purpose of the trial, which was to prove King Henry VIII guilty of heresy. While we knew what we were talking about, we focused our arguments too much on the person we were cross-examining instead of King Henry VIII. I feel we could have used more evidence showing all of the horrible things that King Henry VIII did, such as getting divorced. We proved our point, but didn’t support it as well as we could have.
Holding a mock trial of King Henry VIII definitely helped me comprehend the significant impact of the Reformation. I learned so much about certain individuals during the Reformation. For example, I know have a comprehensive understanding of the political and religious view points of Sir Isaac Newton, King Henry VIII, and Saint Ignatius Loyola. It was interesting how we were able to witness those such as Luther and Calvin, who support reform of the Church, argue against those who did not support the reformation. The mock trial of King Henry VIII granted me a unique perspective of the Reformation. I learned about many conflicts, such as the conflict between the church and the government, and between the church and the scientific community. The person that I learned about the most was King Henry VIII. I learned how awful he was.
In the trial of Henry VIII, the prosecution side did a good job of proving him a heretic by ruining his image as a king. While the defense also did a great job in trying to prove that, the marriage between Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII was in fact void because her marriage with Henry VIII’s brother Arthur technically never ended. Thus, my side was defense and we tried in disproving that the move made by the Pope was in fact a political move rather than a religious one and we did a good job in proving that Henry VIII breaking away from the church was ultimately a good strategy, which greatly helped England. My general weakness was that for the cross-examination of my person, Martin Bucer, I had very little time to prepare for it thus I did poorly when the prosecution cross-examined me.
Post a Comment