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?
20 comments:
In the mock trial of Henry VIII both the prosecution and the defense succeeded in trying to prove their points. The prosecution succeeded in showing how England had been a great state as Henry VIII entered his reign. They then proceeded to show how England took a change for the worse as Henry as their ruler. Being on the prosecution our goal was in fact to show how the cause of the destruction was in Henry VIII taking over the kingdom. We proved his heresy, how he led the people of England to damnation, and how he destroyed the economic and political, and social fabric of Europe with each witness we put on the stand.
The defense also did an exceptionally good job defending Henry VIII against the charges against him. They showed how Henry VIII as king was not all that different from how the Papal position was corrupt. There was corruption in the church and they used this to undermine the prosecutions testimony. They said Henry VIII breaking away from the church put the people in the same position if they were to follow the pope. Both were corrupt they said so it really was not at all different it just happened to help Henry VIII nullify his marriage.
One thing I thought the prosecution did well one was when we were getting cross-examined and our cross examinations of the defenses witnesses too. When we were getting cross-examined everyone knew how to answer to help prove our point and not make our side look like we were contradicting ourselves. We also did an excellent job in our cross examinations of the defense. Each witness we cross examined we did for a purpose and I think the answers that we got for the most part ended up helping our case like we wanted them to.
I think one of the prosecutions weaknesses was the fact that we did not work together well at first. We worked separately trying to find out how we could testify and prove our point instead of working as a group. We each individually were trying to make the entire case against Henry VIII, when really we had to look at the bigger picture and realize that each of us were part of a bigger case against Henry. This led us to have to work harder near the end so it would all come together the way we needed it to so we could prove our points against Henry.
This mock trial contributed to my understanding of the reformation in multiple ways. One way was to see how many people had broken away from the church during this time in history. It seemed that everyone was questioning the churches ways and coming up with their own ways to interpret what the bible was saying for the people to do. Many people felt the church was not correct in the ways they were going about things and they truly took a radical outlook on it, like Martin Luther or John Calvin. Another thing that the trial helped me to understand was how Henry VIII truly affected Europe in more ways than one. By splitting from the church he caused disarray in all of Europe since he was going against the pope. Then he married multiple times later in life, which had not been done before. He also affected the social life, economic life and political life in Europe by what he did during the Reformation. The trial also introduced me to many of the key figures that played a role in the Reformation and gave me a more in-depth knowledge about them than I would have known if we did not do this trial.
This past week our AP European History class participated in a mock trial of Henry VIII. Henry was accused on charges of heresy, leading the people of Britain to eternal damnation and undermining the political, economic and social fabric of Europe. The class was split up into two groups; the defense and prosecution. Within each of the groups we all were assigned a character of the defense or prosecution whom we had to become familiar with for we would be put on the stand as well as cross examined by the opposing side.
Both the prosecution and defense were successful in arguing several of the key elements of the trial. The prosecution successfully argued that Henry VIII was indeed a heretic, for he had broken away from the Roman Catholic Church. They continually brought up the fact that the Unum Sanctum states that whatever the church and pope do and say were inevitably right. They also brought up the point that the Pope was the word of God, for he was directly chosen by God to rule the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore by breaking away from the Church, they stated, Henry was also breaking away from God. They also questioned many of the defense’s witness on this as well, because many of the witnesses were either Protestant reformers or deemed heretics by the RCC. They also consistently reinforced the fact that Henry had truly broken away from the Church not because of the corruption of the RCC but because he wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which the Pope would not agree to. These points were hard for the defense to argue when the prosecution cross-examined the defense’s witnesses. The prosecution, for the most part, was widely successful in answering most of the defense’s questions.
The defense also brought up many key elements as to why Henry VIII was innocent. A major point in our (I was in the defense) argument was that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was invalid. We stressed the point that Catherine had been married to Henry's brother and therefore by the standards of the Catholic Church, their marriage was invalid, due to a passage from Leviticus. The defense also consistently reminded the jury of the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, in both our witnesses’ remarks about breaking away from the church and in our cross-examination of corrupt church officials on the prosecution. The fact of separating from the church was cleared up as a necessary act to break away from the corruption of the Catholic Church and reform it. Another key element of the defense was the fact that Henry did not undermine the political, economic and social fabric of Europe by breaking away from the RCC because this had been happening due to the wars of various countries, including Catholic ones.
Our group (the defense) was successful because we each created our own questions, which we would answer in a way that disproved Henry of the accusations against him. We also consistently brought up the main elements of our case. All of the members of our group researched their person in depth, as well as the person they were to cross-examine. We all worked well together for we helped each other find questions that would prove Henry’s innocence and disprove the prosecution.
Although the defense was successfully in our argument, we also had some weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses was that during our cross-examinations of the prosecution’s witnesses we would try to build up our questions, rather than just bluntly saying the heart of the question, thus we would run out of time and the major question that might have disproved the prosecution were not able to be said. Another weakness was that some of the defense’s testimonies did not entirely relate back to why Henry was innocent of the charges against him. Now that the trial is completed I feel that the defense should have gone more in depth with the answers to our questions, so that we could clearly state why our assigned character could relate to his innocence. We also should have prepared better for a few of the more unexpected answers we received from witnesses in cross examination.
The mock trial greatly contributed to my understanding of the reformation. I was only vaguely familiar with the reformation, and that was due to my reading of the class textbook. It gave more reason to the why so many people broke away from the Roman Catholic Church at the time, due to the corruption of the Papacy and the new ideas brought up in Lutheranism and Calvinism. The trial also went more in depth with many characters of the reformation, thus showing the various points of view during the reformation. IT also helped show why the Roman Catholic Church was slowly slipping away from power and its control over the European citizens. Lastly I learned of how Henry’s decision to break away from the RCC, due to the fact of wanting to annul his marriage from Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn, greatly impacted the future of England.
Henry VIII Trial Response:
Both sides of the Trial managed to do a reasonably competent job of arguing certain key points. The primary elements that the Prosecution succeeded in arguing was that Henry VIII’s separation from the Catholic Church constituted a Heresy in the Catholic sense. That it to say, that as the English Reformation was a deviation from the established standards and organization of the Church (as it defied the supremacy of the Pope over the Church), and as an act of Heresy in the eyes of the Catholic Church is defined as such a deviation from the established order of the Church, the English Reformation must necessarily have constituted Heresy. The Defense endeavored to refute this by either asserting that the Anglicans did not abide by the standards and definitions of the Church and thus their separation and later reform could not constitute Heresy in their eyes, and also that the Church, in defying Henry’s desire to annul his illegitimate marriage, was committing a greater Heresy still by deviating from the word of Scripture. However, the Defense did not, for the most part, do a terribly vigorous or effective job of impressing and cementing such points (indeed, the former itself was a bit shaky to begin with, as the trial was conducted by Catholics from a Catholic perspective, making Anglican and other non-Catholic perceptions irrelevant in respect to defining Heresy).
The Defense did a fairly solid job of communicating that Henry did not lead England into damnation, primarily by the examples of England’s future prosperity and piety provided by the testimony of Elizabeth I and Oliver Cromwell. While the Prosecution did make nebulous references to the damnation that they believed would have to face the English people from deviating from the Church and did a reasonable job of asserting that Henry VIII rather facilitated the general conversion to Anglicanism in a rather harsh and aggressive manner, they failed to provide any solid evidence that England was actually cast into damnation and moral degradation. As Henry’s actions with respect to promoting Anglicanism only support the point that he led the English into damnation if the English actually experienced clear signs of such things in their future history, their argument was not terribly effective.
Neither side was that great at touching upon the actual political and social state of Europe at the time and how Henry VIII impacted it. Most individuals ignored the origins of the major conflicts and alliances that arose before, during, and after Henry attained his annulment from Catherine of Aragon and separation from the Catholic Church. For the most part, the Prosecution made vague accusations of Henry’s role in producing War/Tension in Europe without providing much concrete evidence. With the exception of myself, nobody really touched upon the fact that the two Italian Wars that followed Henry’s annulment and separation from the Church of Rome weren’t started by or because of England’s actions (and likewise with the continuously raging conflicts with the Ottomans in the East). As Henry VIII, I feel I did a reasonable job of asserting that this was the case and thereby denying that Henry VIII’s decision really did much to produce new European conflicts at all. No side really presented much concrete on the state of English-Catholic trade during the period, so the assertion that Henry undermined the Economic fabric of Europe wasn’t really conclusively proven or refuted. The defense did a reasonable job of establishing that Luther predated Henry VIII and that Calvin’s main inspiration was not the Church of England, and thereby establishing that Henry VIII wasn’t really responsible for the Catholic-Protestant conflict that would wrack Europe during the Reformation, although it could have done a better job of solidifying and asserting the point directly throughout the proceedings of the trial.
A notable difference between the Prosecution and the Defense was the manner in which they conducted their questioning. The Prosecution mostly asked systematic, to-the-point factual questions of their witnesses to build up a series of facts, whereas the Defense tended to ask very general questions from their witnesses, whom would then use the opportunity to expound more generally on the topic at hand. The Prosecution also appeared somewhat better organized and coordinated, although witnesses from both groups often seemed uncertain as they recalled and elaborated upon various historical details and personal views, especially during the cross-examination. There were some exceptions, such as Cardinal Wolsey, but this did certainly apply to many witnesses. Certainly, there were issues with the organization of the defense. While there was some initial coordination in respect to the formulation of points and questions, long-term consistent cohesivity in ensuring that the right research was getting done, verifying all important facts and questions before the trial as a group, etc. was not present, and this certainly showed throughout the trial in the form of various weak or conflicting points. The defense also didn’t do a terribly great job of exploiting certain holes in the reasoning or facts of the Prosecution during cross-examination (such as Wolsey’s claims of dedicating himself to the creation of peace in Europe, inconsistent with his involvement in the League of Cognac and the planned English invasion of France, or Pope Leo’s claim that he would have repealed the title of Defender of the Faith from Henry VIII had he known that Henry VIII would later reject the Catholic Church, which conflicted with the concept of Papal Infallibility). Not to mention that some of the testimony and cross-examination material simply felt irrelevant or trivial. Ultimately, I really feel that the defense should have attempted to maintain better organization and internal communication at all points. It also might have been wise to have try to invest more energy in respect to making testimony more assertive and emotionally vivacious. A lot of testimony felt a bit dull or detached (which certainly couldn’t have helped the apparent conviction and solidity of our arguments). However, the Defense still managed to make some solid points and score a few victories.
The Defense probably should have attempted to introduce the point that the Catholic Church had itself deviated from the established customs and beliefs of the original Church of Rome as it split off from its Byzantine counterparts and gradually developed its own doctrine, as well as making reference to how things like the sale of indulgences and violations of the vows of celibacy among the clergy would have constituted violations of the original standards and pronouncements of the Scripture (the former) or the Church’s word (the latter). This could have been used to assert that the Church was itself consistently committing Heresy, and thus was in no position to accuse Henry VIII of Heresy. However, while some of these points were touched upon, they weren’t solidly or consistently formed into defined and decisive statements or accusations. Additionally, as Henry, I probably should have referenced the Italian War of 1536-38 as further support for the absence of a causative relationship between Henry’s actions and the wars in Europe during his reign following his separation from the Church.
As Henry, I also should have made more explicit reference to the shifting alliances in the War of the League of Cambrai and the alliance of the French with the heathen Ottomans during the Italian War of 1542-1546 to highlight that shifting political allegiances were common during the time period, and that Henry’s example was not at all unique or significant in the grand scale of history. Explicit reference to previous wars could also have helped to reinforce my points about how Europe had experienced war and strife for centuries before Henry’s reign, and that any conflicts that followed thereafter would be consistent with the tendencies and progression of European geopolitics and history. Additionally, I should certainly have made reference to the Great Schism as well as my delegation of spiritual duties to Archbishop Cranmer during my testimony, especially during cross-examination. With the former, I could have reinforced the claim that the Papacy had itself acted in a heretical fashion, whereas with the latter I could claim that, as most of the Anglican Church’s spiritual duties were managed by the less worldly Cranmer, my Church’s spiritual operations were somewhat less bound by material interests as the Pope’s was. I definitely should have better prepared my cross-examination questions. My original line of questioning was highly roundabout and time-consuming. With Catherine, I had intended to establish through questioning the length and nature of her marriage with Arthur and the probability that a woman in her position could have consummated her marriage within such a period of time. In doing so, I had intended to make Catherine’s assertion that she had failed to consummate her marriage seem improbable, undermining her points and reinforcing the validity of the annulment.
However, once I realized how pressed I was for time, I ended up asking hasty and easily refutable questions. In the case of Philip II, my attempts to make points about the origins and shifting political allegiances inherent to conflicts during the era occupied too much time. Likewise with my attempts to make proper points following Philip’s answers. I should have adapted them better into question form and generally made all of my cross-examination responses more concise. It also might have been advisable to directly attempt to refute the matter of the claim that Henry VIII lead the English people into damnation, making reference to the abolition of the debauched and corrupt monasteries by my reign (conveniently ignoring the fact that some of these institutions were entirely chaste and reasonable, of course), the clearly Providence-granted failure of pro-Catholic movements like the Crusade of Grace and the swift demise of my Catholic enemies (including the convenient deaths of natural causes of Catherine of Aragon and Cardinal Wolsey). Double-checking my dates for the War of the League of Cognac might also have been a good idea, as the War ended significantly prior to the formal separation of the Anglican Church. Of course, it finally abated close to the period in time in which Henry prepared to assume control of the English Church and in which clear signs of the imminent English separation were manifesting, so it still suffices to support the point that significant conflict occurred in Europe before Henry’s separation of the Church and that war in Europe continued independent of religious tensions with and within England. Overall, however, I feel that I generally did a good job of both addressing the claims of the Prosecution and dealing with my cross-examination questions.
Ultimately, the trial’s contribution to my understanding of the Reformation was somewhat limited. While I did learn various tidbits of interesting history from researching Henry VIII and the subject of my cross-examination, Catherine of Aragon, I found that neither the trial nor my research did all that much to significantly improve or alter my general conception of the time period. While my research into the Italian Wars was significantly beneficial in helping me to properly understand the overall chronology and geopolitical context of many of the major conflicts of the era and thus fleshed out my understanding of the period as a whole, the trial didn’t really introduce much that I did not already know about the consequences of the actual Reformation. As all testimony was modulated with proving or disproving the allegations of Henry VIII in mind, much of it did not serve to reveal many deep insights about the consequences of the English Reformation and the general Reformation in Europe that I wasn’t already aware of (I already knew that the English government seized Church properties and executed dissenters to the new Anglican way, that the German and English Reformations antagonized and galvanized the Church, that the annulment of Catherine’s marriage and the split from Catholicism was displeasing to Emperor Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire, that the growing corruption, materialism, and sanctimony in the Church in the time leading up to and during the Reformation sparked great criticism of the Church and lead to the formation of the first reformed Christian sects, etc.). While some research and references within the Trial helped to shed light on a few specific details and events (the number of Catholics that Elizabeth massacred, the number of Protestants that Bloody Mary executed, etc.), I honestly can’t say it was greatly enlightening in respect to the Reformation (although it still certainly made appreciable contributions to my understanding of the period).
In the trial of King Henry VIII, both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job in arguing their respective sides. The prosecution did a good job backing up the charges that were put forth against Henry. All of the witnesses were vital in showing certain aspects of each charge. The prosecution was successful in arguing the fact that Henry was a heretic and that he led his people to eternal damnation. They successful used the definition of a heretic so it was very easy to prove that he was a heretic because by definition a heretic is a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. Since Henry created a church of his own, he is automatically deemed a heretic. Henry made his loyal subjects switch to his new religion, Anglicanism, thereby leading all of his people to eternal damnation. The defense did a good job defending Henry’s decisions, including the divorce from Catherine of Aragon. They defended the position that his marriage to Catherine was not considered valid because of the fact that she had been previously betrothed to his older brother Arthur, she says that their marriage had not been consummated but Henry did not believe that this was so.
I believe that my side defended our arguments against Henry very well. Each person that we put on the stand helped us in some way. In the beginning, we showed how Henry was before he had broken away from the Roman Catholic Church. The popes, who testified against him, showed the court that the king that they knew before would never have done such a thing as break away from the church. The people who we put on the stand who lived during Henry’s life time demonstrated what he was like as a person and why they thought that he had done something wrong. The last groups of people that we put on the stand were the people who lived after Henry’s lifetime, who demonstrated what had happened after Henry’s reign was over. These people showed what Henry’s choices had on the world. I believe that my side accurately depicted the charges that were put against Henry.
One of our weaknesses in the trial was the fact that we did not always use the cross-examination questions to their full potential. Instead of just asking the straight questions, we would kind of lead into the questions, which we didn’t really have a lot of time to do. I think that we should have just asked the questions and not led into them as much as everyone wanted to. Another one of our weaknesses was the organization of the trial. It took us a little bit to get everything and everyone together. If we had done that sooner, then we could have been more organized throughout the whole trial and not having so much to do over the weekends.
This exercise helped me understand the Reformation more because it shows the opinions of certain other religions leaders during this time period, including Luther and Calvin. They agreed with Henry’s ideas because they themselves split from the Roman Catholic Church. The trial also showed me how many people did not like the ideas of the Roman Catholic Church and how many people thought that the Church was corrupt and that it needed a change. I was also unaware about the fact that Henry’s actions had such a large impact on Europe as a whole. It led to religious wars with Spain and England. Those are the events that I learned about while we worked on the trial.
Michael Saxton
After doing the mock trial of Henry VIII, it is now clear what the key arguments were for the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution successfully proved that Henry VIII was technically a heretic because of the fact that he broke away from the Catholic Church and became a Protestant. The prosecution also made a very strong argument that Henry VIII was leading his people into damnation because of the fact that he made it illegal for anyone to deny that he was the supreme head of the Church (which is heresy because of the fact that the Pope was considered the supreme head of the Church). The defense successfully argued that Henry VIII was not responsible for ruining the social, economic, and political fabric of Europe. The defense successfully argued this by mentioning that Henry VIII had no power in preventing other decisions that other people made outside of his country in time periods when he did not live. The defense also made a very strong argument that Henry VIII was not leading his people into hell because there were no signs that the English people were being punished. The defense argued that God wasn’t punishing Englishmen for Henry’s sins because of the fact that England had experienced a Golden Age after Henry VIII passed away.
I was on the side of the defense, so I am able to comment on what the defense did well. The people defending Henry VIII made very strong arguments because of their well-prepared testimonies, particularly from the historical figures of Queen Elizabeth I and Galileo. The testimony of Queen Elizabeth I established that Henry VIII wasn’t leading his people into damnation because his daughter was a very powerful monarch who ruled in a time when English people were prospering and were feeling nationalistic. The testimony of Galileo established an instance in which Henry VIII was not responsible for ruining the framework of Europe. Because Galileo’s heretical discoveries were made in Italy, it was improbable that Henry VIII was responsible for ruining the social fabric of Europe in that instance. The fact that Galileo was not cross-examined is further proof that his testimony was very effective. It is also worth mentioning that the testimony of Henry VIII was executed perfectly. Of all the arguments that the testimony of Henry VIII established, the strongest one was that his divorce of Catherine of Aragon was justified because the writings of Leviticus condoned the action of marrying the wife of a brother. Although the defense had much strength with the testimony of their witnesses, the majority of the people on the defense were lacking in their ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. The cross-examination of Mary Tudor and Ignacius Loyola are only two examples in which the defense failed to undermine the testimony of witnesses from the side of the prosecution. Also, the cross-examination of Mary the Queen of Scots wasn’t executed as well as it could’ve been; the questions being asked were not short and concise, which resulted in an ineffective cross-examination.
The mock trial of Henry VIII did achieve its goal of contributing to the students’ understanding of the impact of the Reformation. The mock trial emphasized the fact that the Catholic Church viewed any new ideas in theology as threatening to its existence. Part of the argument that Henry VIII was a heretic includes the fact that he broke away from the Church and became a protestant. This is evidence that the Reformation had a large impact on the Catholic Church, because there were people who thought that the church was corrupt. People who established new types of religious beliefs did so because the reformers made it clear that the church was more concerned with worldly affairs than spiritual ones. However, it should be noted that the Reformation influenced politics very little. The defense’s closing argument mentioned that wars between European countries occurred mostly because of political problems. Although differences in religion opinion inspired warriors to fight, they did not start conflicts.
Last week the class completed a mock trial for Henry VIII. Henry was charged with heresy, undermining the economic, social and political fabric of Europe and leading the people of Great Britain to eternal damnation. The class was divided into two sections, the Defense and the Prosecution. Each one of us was assigned a particular person from that time period, and had to research them thoroughly in order to present our case effectively. We had to be prepared to be cross examined and questioned by the opposing side. I was assigned Thomas Cromwell, and I was on the defense.
In my opinion both sides presented their arguments very well and with a lot of examples and details. The prosecution was well prepared and brought up valid points that reamed Henry VIII as a heretic. They gave examples of how Henry went against the church and disrespected the pope by saying that he was indeed corrupt and was misusing his power. They used this point and emphasized the fact that by speaking ill of Church and the pope Henry was going against God’s decisions since the pope was chosen by God and was directly given power to rule. They also pointed out Henry’s true motives about breaking away from the church, they said that the real reason for the reformation was that Henry wanted a divorce and the Pope was not allowing him to attain one. Therefore Henry created his own religion for his personal gain rather than any religious reason. The defense did face some difficulty because these points were hard to argue with, but they tried their level best to prove Henry innocent.
The Defense was also able to come up with a strong case by arguing that Henry’s marriage to Catherine should be considered void since she had been married to his brother for quite some time, and the marriage was never consummated. The defense argued that any marriage like that should be considered invalid and false. We cleared up the fact that Henry’s reason to separate from the Catholic Church was solely due to the corruption of the Church and the pope. I believe that the defense was able to come up with a strong argument because all of us researched our character very well and learned about their background and some of their flaws so we would be able to answer a lot more affirmatively and confidently.
One of our weaknesses was that we were taking too much time to elaborate on the events and the details that we had researched about a particular person rather than to just come up with question and cross examine them. We were highlighting too much of our own opinions rather than stating our questions straightforwardly. The prosecution had an upper hand because most of the people on the defense had a corrupt past as well, and they were able to dig out their past very well.
I learned a lot from this trial because I had read about the trial in Modern World History but we never went to deep in it. I never knew the actual reasons of why Henry decided to separate from the Catholic Church. Until the trial I did see Henry as a rebel and a heretic who was against the popes and their teachings, but after performing the trial and my research I was able to understand why Henry actually went against the church and was deemed a heretic. He moved away from The Roman Catholic Church because it was corrupt and was abusing its authority.
The prosecution and the defense were both equally successful in proving their respective points in the mock trial of King Henry VIII. The charges Henry VIII faced were heresy, leading the people of Britain to eternal damnation, and undermining the political, social, and economic fabric of Europe. The prosecution's main point was that of heresy. The main focus of each testimony was trying to further prove the heretic acts of Henry VIII. I would say they had fairly strong evidence to prove him guilty of heresy, mainly by using Unum sanctum to say that, the pope's word is the word of God, and breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church and the pope, meant breaking away from God. With this act, the prosecution believed that Henry VIII was ultimately leading the people of England to eternal damnation, and believed that the innocent citizens shouldn't have to pay the price for his actions. In this case, the prosecution was successful in providing evidence of Henry being a heretic, but not as successful in proving that he undermined the social, political, and economic fabric of Europe.
While the prosecution was successful in proving Henry's heretic actions, the defense was equally successful in providing reasons and justifications for each action that was seen as unjust in the eyes of the prosecution. The defense's major focus was on the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the church was separating itself from the traditional ways of Christianity. The defense provided evidence of corrupt occurrences in the church with each cross-examination. The defense was also successful in refuting the argument that Henry wanted to split from the RCC because he wanted to annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. Since Catherine was previously married to the brother of Henry VIII, the marriage between Henry and her must be invalid, and therefore would not need the Pope's consent to declare it invalid. By using the witnesses Martin Luther and John Calvin, the defense was successful in explaining the original beliefs of Christianity, and proving that the Roman Catholic Church had separated itself from these beliefs, and that separating from the RCC and forming his own church was the only option of Henry VII. So while the prosecution provided examples of why Henry was a heretic, the defense was equally successful in proving why his acts were not heretic, but was in fact the only option to keep him and his people from eternal damnation.
As part of the defense, our side worked well in working together to find major points of weakness in the prosecution's case, and therefore made our case proving Henry's innocence more successful. We worked together to create questions that not only proved our own points, but undermined the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. All in all, our side completed the task in a successful manner, with definitely more strengths than weaknesses.
Our main and possibly only true weakness was our ability to provide evidence against the charges of how Henry's separation from the church did not undermine the social, political, and economic fabric of Europe. It did not seem like a major factor throughout the trial, as that charge was not brought up often, and was not the main focus of the trial. Our group maybe could have given more focus with the time given in class to make sure our arguments and testimonies would be successful, and ensuring that everyone was as well prepared as they could be.
Overall, this exercise contributed too much of my understanding of the impact of the Reformation. As I was Martin Luther, I got to learn a great deal in learning about his impact on the Reformation through his 95 Theses sparking the Protestant Reformation. Being able to work with the defense in proving Henry's innocence during this time helps the understanding because he believed his own church would be better for the people of England than that of the Roman Catholic Church. By having such key characters in the Reformation present themselves in the trial, it allowed me to learn about what role they had in the Reformation, and how the actions of each of them affected all of Europe during this time.
King Henry VIII was accused of heresy, leading the people of England to eternal damnation and undermining the political, economic and social fabric of Europe. After completing the trial, I felt that both the defense and the prosecution were successful in arguing their points.
The defense was successful in developing thorough, specific cross examination questions that were often difficult for the prosecution to answer. The defense succeeded in stressing that Henry alone could not be blamed for leading the people of England to eternal damnation because the Roman Catholic Church had terrific corruption as well. They explained that Henry broke away from the Church in order to get away from the corruption and to help reform it. The defense consistently stressed that Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was illegitimate because Catherine had been married to Henry’s brother before her marriage to Henry, therefore by the principles of the Church, it was never valid.
I felt that my side, the prosecution, did an excellent job developing questions that were comprehensive yet got the main point across quickly. I felt that we proved that Henry was indeed a heretic not only by divorcing Catherine of Aragon but also by breaking away from the Church. We clearly proved that he ruined England’s relationship with Spain by divorcing Catherine of Aragon and we proved that through the Treason Act he threatened the people of England into accepting him as the head of both the state and the church.
I would say that the one weakness the prosecution had was not looking at the whole picture from the very beginning. We started off by each researching our own person and trying to prove how each of us could prove Henry guilty individually. What we should have been doing is taking information from all of our people and trying to put our information to prove Henry guilty as a whole.
All in all I felt that this exercise significantly contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation. Before the trial I had only known the history of the Reformation from our textbook, and even though it did cover a lot of information, the trial helped to understand it on a deeper level. By having each of us act as a character in history it helped me to understand the different views of the Roman Catholic Church and why the controversies that occurred, did occur. I really enjoyed playing Catherine of Aragon because she played such a dominant role. I was able to have passion about what I was saying rather than just repeating information because I truly believed in what Catherine said. I learned that the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church and the ideas of Lutheranism and Calvinism were the reason for its loss of power and why people pulled away from it.
Our class participated in a mock trial of Henry VIII. The prosecution accused him of heresy, leading the people of England to eternal damnation, and destroying the economic and social fabric of Europe. Obviously, it was the job of the defense to justify King Henry’s actions. I felt that both sides did a good job on this assignment, and overall it helped me learn a lot about the impact of the reformation.
I believe that my group, the prosecution, did a good job with organization and how each witness testified. It was smart to have everyone testify in chronological order, because this most effectively showed the changing relationship between England and the church. I think each witness contributed well to our overall argument. Our side presented their points very effectively.
A weakness of our side was not seeing the big picture at first. The key to this was to have each witness make a point relative to their lifetime or relationship with King Henry, and this would be a small but effective part of the entire argument. At first, it seemed everyone was trying to fit every point into their argument, which was pretty much impossible for most of the witnesses.
Weaknesses of both sides were definitely in the effectiveness of cross-examination questions. Although I feel people were prepared for their questions, they were not worded precisely and accurately enough, and were pretty much shut down by Mr. Kirby before they could get to ask the actual question. Had the points been conveyed more effectively in the questions, the cross-examination on both sides could have been more useful to their arguments.
This trial helped me to further my understanding of the Reformation because it showed many different viewpoints. Since each witness had a different view on the topic based on different life experiences, relationships with the king, time periods, etc., this trial helped me to see and understand these various opinions, which ultimately deepened my overall understanding. As Pope Julius II, I also learned some interesting little pieces of trivia about the corruption of the church.
In the mock trial of King Henry VIII, the prosecution and defense both had very powerful arguments. The prosecution focused mostly on the first two charges, heresy and leading his people to eternal damnation. The prosecution did a very good job of proving the two charges under the definitions of heresy outlined by the church itself. Once they proved that Henry was a heretic because he led himself and his people to beliefs contradicting that of the church, the prosecution had a very easy time proving that he led his people to eternal damnation because anyone who is condemned as a heretic is considered to be on the path to eternal damnation. However, the prosecution did a very poor job of defending the third charge, unwinding the social, political, and economic fabric of Europe. There were only two witnesses called to the stand throughout the entire trial with regards to the charge. Although the witnesses were able to provide strong evidence for the charge, the small number diminished the impact of the evidence.
The defense did an excellent job with the trial considering the circumstances. Since it was a court of the church, they knew they had almost no chance in winning the case. With that in mind, their arguments were both their strengths and weaknesses. Their arguments toward the necessity to break away from the church due to corruption within and for the annulment of the marriage due to Katherine’s background of marrying Henry’s brother were extremely well put together from witness to witness and provided for a strong retaliation to the prosecutions numerous accusations. However, such arguments only weakened the defense in such a court because all the arguments go against the church and the pope. The ideas brought up about corruption are in direct offense to the church and the idea of necessary annulment meant that the pope was wrong in his decision to sustain the marriage. Since the court went by the laws of the church, the prosecution was able to consider such arguments as heretical and dismiss them altogether, winning the case.
As far as group strengths go, the prosecution did an excellent job of preparing for the case. Each member of the group did their part to come to the trial with questions written down and answers prepared for each one. Most of the members also came prepared with enough notes and background knowledge of their characters to successfully get through the cross examinations.
The main weakness to the prosecution was its lack of order. In the interest of time, it was decided that the witnesses would simply go up chronologically instead of organizing them by charge. Such a decision weakened the overall impact left by each witness and left it up to the closing arguments to piece everything together. A well prepared prosecution would send witnesses up in the order in which the questions and answers alone could be easily related to one charge at a time, showing the judge/jury systematically how each charge is valid. Because the prosecution went chronologically, the final charge of unwinding the social, political, and economic fabric of Europe was all but lost until the end, strongly diminishing the overall impact of the argument.
Overall, the exercise did help my understanding of the reformation. Although the book gave very strong background knowledge on the topic, the extensive research done on each individual character was far more than one person could handle given the time-frame. When each character presented their point of view, I could more clearly see how the reformation affected different people in different ways. The trial accentuated the fact that the Catholic Church was losing power due to ignorance and corruption and gave a much better feeling of what life might have been like during such a period of change.
During the past couple weeks our class participated in a sort of reenactment of how a trial for King Henry VIII would have happened in 15th century Europe after he separated from the Roman Catholic Church and became the head of his own Church of England. Judge Kirby decided that the charges for Henry were of course heresy, as well as leading the English people to eternal damnation, and destroying the economic and social fabric of Europe. The defense was given the challenge to justify Henry’s actions which would have been almost impossible at the time of the authoritative and influential Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, both sides did a proficient job in arguing their stances, with both shining moments and some evident weaknesses.
The prosecution, my side, was very successful in arguing the obvious fact that by Henry completely turning his back on the Pope and his “unam sanctam,” as Drew often brought up, he had committed a great crime and sin, and that at the time would have been guilty on the spot. I also thought my group was successful in arguing that Henry’s intentions were for personal reasons and not for the great good of England as a whole, and that Europe was no better off after his bold move. Overall, I think my side did a great job in the way we structured our examinations of our own teammates because it was organized chronologically which allowed there to be a sort of flow in our characters varying opinions on the matter. I also think we handled ourselves quite well when being cross-examined because most of us knew what we were talking about when asked difficult or obscure questions, and when an inappropriate or unrelated question came up we would handle ourselves well and stay in character. I felt the weaknesses of my team were that during the examinations of ourselves, some of us did not provide responses that were really molded by our characters, but instead tried to include every known reason we could of Henry’s guilt. Another weakness, strongly evident of both sides, was that not all of our cross examination questions were straight to the point and many ended up being shut down.
The defense side was quite successful in arguing the point that the Roman Catholic Church was a corrupt establishment and that life in England was no worse after the split to Anglicanism. However, they did not realize that if this was a real mock trial in Italy during the 16th century, many of their responses would have been laughed at and many members of the defense would have been declared heretics themselves. I also felt the defense was weak in addressing Henry VIII’s valid reasons for justifying his split from the Roman Catholic Church and strayed away from that topic for the most part. A final glaring weakness I saw was that most of the members of the defense did not state one reason they had for defending Henry as their character and instead focused on how bad the church was. Besides that, they did a proficient job.
This mock trial definitely contributed to my understanding of the impact of the Reformation because it provided me with extremely different view points from the minds of important Reformation figures that I previously had little understanding of. Also, I learned a great deal about my figure Ignatius Loyola who I quite frankly just picked for his cool name. I found out that he was actually an extremely significant person in the Counter-Reformation and has a great historical significance.
Throughout the trial, I feel both the prosecution and defense did a sufficient job in arguing their case. The prosecution was successful in proving Henry guilty of his accused crimes. This includes, first and foremost, convicting him of heresy by using the evidence of England’s break from the Catholic Church under Henry’s rule. The prosecution also provided ample evidence of Henry leading his country eternal damnation through the split. The accusation of Henry unraveling the social and political fabric of Europe wasn’t supported as strongly through the cross-examinations as the first two were, although it was touched upon.
In my opinion, the defense had a much more difficult job than the prosecution. In defending Henry, they had to overcome limitless amounts of evidence against him which clearly proved him guilty of his many accused crimes. Regardless, I think they were able to provide a strong argument. The defense showed that corruption within the church had existed prior to Henry’s rule. They claimed his reason for breaking with the church was largely due to this corruption. Although this reasoning didn’t completely justify Henry’s actions, it slightly weakened the argument of prosecution. The defense also argued that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was invalid, since Catherine’s marriage with his brother was, in fact consummated. Because the marriage had been invalid, the defense stated Henry was justified in annulling his marriage to Catherine and marrying Anne Boleyn.
A major strength of the prosecution was the preparation for the questioning. All the members of our group were adequately prepared with both questions for the lead prosecutor to ask, as well as notes or written answers to help themselves give a strong answer that would support our case. Also, during the cross-examinations, I feel the members of the prosecution had researched enough on the background of their historical figure so they were able to fully answer the question in a way that benefited the prosecuting side.
One of the most evident weaknesses of the prosecution was presenting the defense with concise and direct questions during the cross-examinations. Much of the “questioning” consisted of a summary of events that happened during that time, leading up to a single question. While a lot of the summaries provided evidence that supported our case, the purpose of the cross-examination was for questioning the defense. As a group, we could have come up with questions that were more direct and helped us to strengthen our case. Also, the organization and planning within the group could have been better. Our group only began to effectively collaborate with each other a few days before the trial, when we decided to question the witnesses chronologically and began to come up with questions that would be effective in supporting our case. Prior to this, we had individually researched our historical figures but didn’t create an overall plan of how to prove the main points we were trying to make.
This mock trial contributed greatly to my understanding of figures and events in the Renaissance, more so than studying for a test or writing a paper on the same topic would have. We were essentially forced to put ourselves in the shoes of a historical figure and not only research information about that person but also understand their positions and reasoning in order to argue our case in the same way they would. Learning the information for a test or paper would have been different because less analysis of the information would have been required. Preparations for the trial included in depth reading of sources about the historical figure we chose, as well as sources about any other figures or events that were somewhat connected to or involved with our figure. This was necessary for the cross-examinations of ourselves, so that we could answer any questions asked about events in which we took part, and also for the cross-examinations of the defense so that we could use their actions against them to support our case. Because we were reenacting history rather than memorizing it, I think this activity was very effective in helping us to understand information on the Renaissance.
The trial of Henry VIII conducted over the last couple of weeks was a beneficial way for the class to review a religiously volatile time period. Having members of the class represent historical figures was useful because information was presented in a way that I better understood versus just reading a book in which all of the opinions and primary information from the persons were simply stated.
Each side in this trial was required to try and argue a certain points to either indict or acquit Henry of charges. Defense strongly advocated that Henry was right in ending his affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church because there was a lot of corruption within. This included excessive bribery as well as illegitimate children of priests and sometimes popes. The defense brought up this particular type of corruption in the cross-examination of Pope Julius II in which he was found to have fathered a daughter. Defense also fought for the idea that Henry’s marriage was never legitimate because she had been previously married to his brother, Arthur and had consummated the marriage. Though they were unsuccessful at proving consummation, defense showed how the marriage could be illegitimate because of biblical scriptures that state that a man cannot marry his brother’s wife. The statement did not say anything about what happened after the brother had died, but it was this elasticity of the passage that the defense expounded upon. Prosecution, on the other hand, had to prove that Henry had wrongly split from the Church and that this had many negative results for, not only himself, but the English people as well. Prosecution did well in proving that Henry was, in fact, a heretic. The definition of a heretic was anyone who goes opposes or contradicts the traditional values of the Catholic Church. By separating from the RCC, creating a new church, and then naming himself as the head of that church, Henry showed he was a heretic through and through. The prosecution was also successful in displaying how Henry’s religious changes did unravel the political and social fabric of his country. This side explained how Henry’s divorce of Catherine ended England’s ties with Spain because Catherine was Spanish. By requiring the conversion of the entire country there were many conflicts between the different religion. Those who refused to switch to the new religion were killed. This resulted in the deaths of many Catholics who were branded as “heretics”. Even after Henry’s rule, there were still religious conflicts. “Bloody” Mary Tudor was an avid Catholic who massacred hundreds of Protestants in the name of Catholicism. Indirectly, Henry was the cause of those types of conflicts and that’s what the Prosecution was able to prove.
I was on the prosecution side, as lead prosecutor, Thomas More. One of the most important things my side did was in the organization of the witnesses. By presenting them chronological, we were able to show the progression and the extent of the damage Henry inflicted. Those who came before Henry’s time confirmed that relations between England and the Catholic Church was going well, Pope Leo X was able to give a lot of insight as to Henry’s behavior before all the drama and how he had been known as “defender of the faith”. These types of witness statements were key in laying the basis for what we would present later. Then we had those who were around during Henry’s time who saw, first-hand, the immediate effects of his actions. This included witnesses like Catherine of Aragon and me, Thomas More who were able to provide information towards the end of England’s alliance with Spain and how the actions affected British people. Lastly, there were those who came after Henry’s time and were able to report back on the negative state of affairs. They were able to show that England had taken a turn of the worse and that it all related back to Henry’s bad decisions.
A weakness from my side was that, some of our cross-examinations of the defense did not help to further our case as much as it could have. Either the questions’ purpose was not clear enough or the defense witness was able to shoot a hole in the case we were trying to build against their testimony. Other than that, though, prosecution was very successful in this trial.
This exercise did help in my understanding of the Reformation due to the fact that I was able to understand it from eyewitnesses who understood the effects of what Henry was doing. I would not say it gave me a complete understanding because even though statements given were from primary sources, each person was slanting his or her statement to fit his or her needs. This meant that I was not given the opportunity to hear an unbiased, strictly factual account which would either prove Henry guilty or innocent. This exercise was actually very useful because of the court setting. Part of the Reformation was deciding who was wrong and who was right on the issues. Personifying Reformation as Henry and the court as the “big question” was a great way to present the big idea of the time.
A key element that the prosecution was successful in arguing was that of heresy. It was impossible for the defense to dismiss the fact that Henry VIIIth had gone against the Catholic Church, thereby committing himself into heresy. Any angle that the defense attempted to use to defend his creation of the Anglo-Saxton Church was quickly argued with such statements as, "If the churches were so similar, why break away from the Pope at all?" or "If corruption within the Roman Catholic Church was an issue, why did Henry VIIIth not use his power to purify it? Is it not obvious that he broke away from the Church solely for selfish gain? And can you honestly say that the Anglo-Saxton Church did not have corruption in it, equal to or above that within the Catholic Church?" The defense attempted to talk around these questions stating that "the Anglo-Saxton Church had nothing to do with Henry VIIIths own financial gain" or that "The corruption within a church will always occur, it had just become too familiar in the Roman Catholic Church," but mostly there was no way to deny that Henry VIIIth breaking away from the Pope because of the denied anullment made him fully and wholly a heretic.
A key element that the defense argued successfully was that of how Henry VIIIth's choices and decisions lead Europe not into destabilization but instead into a "Golden Age" of her history. The prosecution had a difficult time proving history wrong at that point, seeing as the facts of her economic stability and peaceful relations with other countries were being stated from many of the defenses key witnesses. For example, the character I was bestowed was Oliver Cromwell, a man who became the Lord Protector of England, Ireland and Scotland well after Henry VIIIth had left the throne. This man was important however in the fact that he was the Head of The Commonwealth of England. England was finally a republic, after being freed from the tryannical monarchistic rule of Charles Ist. There was no proof the prosecution could unearth about any destabilization of Europe that the defense could not blame on another country, explain against, or completely disregard altogether.
As previously stated, the side I belonged to was the defense. In all regards, it is my belief that this side of the trial did extremely well on the point of testifying. Answers were kept short and precise as to make the testimonies that much more effective. Longer answers that rambled on, whilst still only hinting at very few things lost their significance much more quickly.
The defenses weakness were cross examination. It would of been a stronger argument against the prosecution if the defense's group members had prepared shorter cross-examinations as was the requirement for this assignment. Very few members did this, and in the end, scant evidence was really brought up against the prosecution, seeing as the defense was much too verbose for the time limit that was allowed. No real points were ever made because of the poor question choices from most of the group, since it had been repeatedly stated that one must "choose the most important and general questions that your witness will actually be able to answer." Many of the members lost sight of this and in the end lost out on what could of been an important cross-examination.
The mock trial of Henry VIIIth that was acted out during class was an interesting way to familiarize ones self with the Reformation and of key figureheads during that time period as well. Knowledge of their impact on Europe was easier to understand in the "real life" circumstance of the trial, where their actions and thought processes were questioned, examined and challenged. The importance of such hands-on activities should not be understated in their significance. Information on the Reformations controversial leaders, both in the monarchy and papacy, was fully explained. Philosophers were touched upon, as well as those for and against education, Protestantism, monarchy etc. I can easily say that this exercise fully enhanced my learning and understanding of the Reformation, as it was an educational and interactive experience that got everyone involved in one aspect or another of the great issues of that controversial time.
There were several key elements that were an essential part of each case making each side’s argument defendable during the trial. The key element’s of the defense’s case were that Henry VIII believed that the church was extremely corrupt and in order to save England he had to break from the church, his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not valid because her marriage to his brother was likely consummated, violating the doctrine of Leviticus, and that Henry’s break with the catholic church lead to a period of time of economic prosperity and peace called the golden age. The prosecution had several major points to counter the defense’s case. First was that King Henry committed heresy (an action going against the catholic church) through his divorce with Catherine of Aragon and split from the catholic church, this split from the church eliminated alliances with Spain and leaving political turmoil both domestically and abroad for his immediate successors Mary I and her brother, and that Henry divorced Catherine for his own selfish wishes not because of his belief in church doctrine and appointed and murdered advisors based on who would fulfill his wishes. The prosecution established a case by expressing that before King Henry VIII’s rule times in England were relatively peaceful and prosperous then showing that after Henry’s break with the catholic church, chaos and religious persecution ensued throughout England in an attempt to return it to its previous state and peace between nations and economic prosperity were severely damaged by Henry’s decision.
My side, being the prosecution, was successful in presenting the different aspects of our case well in our opening statements, backing up all our main points with the testimony of each person in our group, and following with a closing statement that reinforced the aspects of our case. The testimony given by each character focused in on the main points our case attempted to prove and the order with which they were called allowed for us to establish the conditions during the times before, after, and during Henry’s split from the Catholic Church. All the witnesses researched their characters well enough to apply their knowledge about their character in the manner that would best support our case. Even though the presentation of our case was relatively strong there were some weaknesses in our case. These weaknesses include some responses to cross examinations and also some cross examination questions of defense witnesses did not fully undermine the testimony of the witnesses in question. However regardless of these weaknesses the case we presented was very strong.
This exercise contributed to my understanding of the impact of the reformation in many ways. By learning as much about a major character in the reformation as it allowed me to learn about how the events before my character (Mary I) lead up to her actions during her rule. Defending her actions gave me a greater understanding of her actions because I understood why she made them and was able to express events through her point of view. Hearing similar accounts from different significant characters allowed me to better realize the significance of Henry’s decision and just how much of Europe was affected by it. It also helped give a better idea of the corruption in the Catholic Church and just how many historical figures recognized the need for its reform. Therefore, the mock trial was extremely helpful in increasing my understanding of the impact of the reformation by allowing me to see the events of the reformation through a different perspective and see how chronologically one event effect and caused another.
During the last few classes, our AP European History class participated in a mock trail of King Henry VIII. Both the prosecution and the defense teams did very well in proving their points. Henry VII was being put on trail for heresy, leading the people of Britain to eternal damnation and undermining the political, economic and social fabric of Europe. The trail was interesting and entertaining to take part in.
The defense did a solid job in showing how England’s future prosperity contradicted undermining the economical fabric of Europe through Elizabeth I. Also, the defense was able to show that King Henry VIII and the papal leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were not very different because of the great corruption in the Church and were able to point out hypocritical figures in the trail. Also, the defense developed thorough cross examination questions. Though some cross examinations were ended before the main point, the questions were prepared to put the witness on the spot and put them in a place that would benefit the defense.
On the other had, the prosecution also did a very good job in answering some of these grilling questions. Many of the witnesses did a great job in preparing for their cross examinations. They also were able to develop questions that were to the point and were able to get the point across.
Being on the defense, I would say that our weakness would be proving that Henry VIII was innocent of heresy. It was a tough thing to do, seeing that breaking away from the Church was indeed an textbook case of heresy. If we were able to show that, things might have been different. Also, many of us knew the beginning that we were going to lose. I think that in a way we put our head on the executioners block because instead of looking for ways to prove Henry’s innocence, we kind of threw out a white flag. Instead, we could have put aside the fact that we were probably going to lose and find things that we could use to our advantage.
Taking part in this trail has made me understand history in a different way, by stepping into someone else’s shoes and re-living what has already happened. It was fun to see history from a new perspective, and I was able to find out much more about Sir Isaac Newton, my character, and his significance in Europe and the Church.
In class, we did a mock trial of Hanry VIII. In this trial, we were split up into a prosecution and defense, trying to prove the guilt or innocence of Hanry VIII on accusations of heresy. Judge Kirby presided over the trial. I was a member of the prosecution, representing the character Pope Clement VII on the witness stand, and cross-examining John Calvin on the stand. I thought both the defense and prosecution were effeective in arguing their cases.
Firstly, the prosecution's argument consisted of several key arguments. First, we tried to prove Henry a heretic, then we moved on to proving that his actions had a negative impact on England. I testified about the former, presenting my "expert" opinion on how and why Henry's actions were heretical. As a whole, the prosecution was largely effective in proving Henry a heretic. We cited numerous religious authorities, most notably the Unum Sanctum principle, and called many expert religous authorities to the stand to give expert testimony on this. On the whole, the testimonies of the different witnesses worked very cohesively and effectively together to paint a clear and well-supported picture of Henry's heresy and to successfully present him as having done this for selfish reasons and not virtuous ones, anticipating and countering the defense's argument to the contrary. The cross-examination was a little weak, as some of us didn't provide great answers to questions, but the prosecution was very effective in proving Henry a heretic. The other half of the prosecution also did a very good job of proving that Henry's actions had an extreme negative impact on the later economy, politics, and society of Europe. Many witnesses, mostly prominent sovereigns and eminent figures of the time, were called to testify on the detrimental effects of Henry's rule. I believe we were successful in proving that Henry managed to worsen the political and economic situation by his actions in splitting away from the church, by throwing things into turmoil. He disrupted alliances, forced holy wars, and increased poverty and suffering. All our witnesses provided effective, well-reasoned, and cohesive testimony that proved the above and countered the defense claims that this was justified. Finally, we summed up our case with a strong and forceful closing statement that delivered a strong blow for our case. However, as good as the prosecution was, the defense was also quite strong, matching the prosecution in many areas. A large and vital premise of the defense argument was that Henry's actions were in large part justified. I thought they did an excellent job of proving, with well-organized testimony, that much of the Church was corrupt. They argued, quite successfully, that Henry's actions actually benefited Europe by establishing a less corrupt religion, and while the effects may indeed have been negative in the short term, in the long term they were actually quite positve. The defense did a great job of supporting this. They struggled a bit on cross-examination, as the prosecution was able to establish many of the defense witnesses as hypocrites and heretics. They made up for this a little bit by raising some excellent points during cross-examination, but largely were mediocre. This was not due to a lack of good points-they had plenty of those-but to a failure to get the question out succinctly. The defense also got outdone a little by the prosecution in the closing statement, but still did a good job. On the whole, I don't think there was a clear-cut winner to the trial-I thought both sides did a good job.
This activity was very helpful to my understanding of the Renaissance and Reformation. I was able to see hands on and more fully understand the full effect of Henry VIII's actions on Europe, and to get a greater understanding of the extent and form of the new ideas of the time. I also learned more about many important figures of the time. I believe that by doing this assignment, I had more fun than I would have had in a regular class, and that I took away a great deal of new, more in-depth knowledge about the Reformation. Thus, I would pronounce it a success.
Both the defense and the prosecution and the defense were successful in presenting their previously assigned positions on King Henry VIII. Both sides touched on important points and issues surrounding the controversy of Henry leaving the Roman Catholic Church and creating the protestant Church of England. Some of the key elements that the prosecution hit home was that there was no doubt that Henry had committed heresy, he had created a religion that swayed a way from church doctrine, and therefore was clearly a heretic. The prosecution also argued that Henry’s reasons for doings so were purely political and selfish and by leading the people of England away from the RCC; he was leading them into eternal damnation and completely ruining the social and economical fabric of not only his country but the rest of Europe.
Some points that the defense team, which was what I was on, was that the need for King Henry to split from the Catholic Church and create his own religion was that the church at the time was extremely corrupt and could not be trusted, and therefore change needed to be made. Also, the defense argued that Henry did not in fact ruin his country, but that the switch to Protestantism ultimately benefited England.
Our side, the defense did many things well. For one, I think we choose questions to ask ourselves when testifying that would properly make our case and we were well prepared. We drove home points about Henry that would prove his innocence, including the Roman Catholic Church corruption, the reasons that Henry divided from the church that were favorable for the defense, and how England prospered now that it had a centralized Church of England, especially during the rule of Queen Elizabeth.
Something that we didn’t do well on though was defending the first charge against King Henry VIII, which is heresy. This is because according to the Roman Catholic Church, by definition, Henry is clearly a heretic. He most certainly was aware of this when he made the decision to revert to Protestantism. So to defend or deny that charge, especially when being cross-examined by the prosecution was difficult and we sometimes struggled to find good defenses for that accusation.
Overall, this trial greatly benefited me and my understanding of the Reformation. This trial really shows what an impact it had on Europe. We had 20 or so people testify in total, all from different backgrounds, different titles, and even different time periods. But, they all were impacted by the Reformation greatly and had a different perspective on how the Reformation effected them and what they felt about the switch of religion. This activity certainly broadened my knowledge on the Reformation.
A mock trial for Henry VII was conducted in Mr. Kirby’s AP European Period 3 class. This trial was designed to separate the students into two groups and have them formulize a system of either defending or prosecuting Henry on the charge of Heresy, Leading the British people to eternal damnation, and ultimately undermining the social, economic, and political fabric of Europe. Overall, I felt that both the defense and the prosecution did a mediocre job at best in this trial.
But let’s stick with the positives first, what did we do well? Personally, I felt that the strengths of the defense are that we were well prepared in both testimonies and cross examination, and that we were adequately lengthy in explaining why Henry should have been acquitted of all of the charges. The defense surely did their research, and each one of us individually picked out the questions we thought would most likely support our case. This ensures that each answer would undoubtedly support our case, and did not waste time on trivial questions explaining unnecessary background information on the character that was not directly relevant to the trial. Also, our cross examination questions were often very powerful and almost always undermined their case; ones that did not were because of time constraint or the way the questions were asked. Likewise, the strength of the prosecution was their number over the defense, and successful organization. The prosecution clearly had a numerical majority over the defense, and since the trial had its bias (Henry was being tried by the Catholic Church, and undoubtedly breaking away from any religious institution can be deemed Heresy), thus it was a simple victory for them. However, they were very good in organizational tactics. It seemed to me like this was an exceptional way of presenting their case, and their testimonies were somewhat emotional to convey true character roles. There was also a difference in the style the case was presented. The defense as mentioned earlier went as an essay format where each witnessed explained themselves, instead of the lead counsel asking all of the question, whilst the prosecution had a question by question turn base system, where there was a simple and obvious response to almost every question.
My side (the defense) had several large weaknesses that should have been addressed, but were not, and I take full responsibility for it. Primarily, I feel that our main weakness was the lack of fundamental organization, and not pertaining to main points. In organization, the defense was not able to achieve the order of the testimonies and that reduced efficiency within the trial. We were also not at our best when the questions were asked, and on our first day of questioning, several of the members of the trial were missing due to other school activities. Thus, organization and unity was lacking in our case, and a lot of time we were really just not on top of our game. As for sticking to our main points, I felt that we should have made every character stick to one or two arguments not have their own individual argument as to why Henry should be acquitted. This flaw caused the defense to seem not as strong in defending Henry’s case. I also felt that we should have mentioned The Great Schism in perhaps one of the cross examination or a witness to show division within the RCC.
In the end, with all due respect, the actual trial truly did not increase my knowledge of the Reformation that much, but rather the research for it did. Speilvogal Chapter 13 has shown me more than enough about what the reformation was and how it was viewed by the people of this time. And I think that most of the class, like me, had a fairly solid understanding of the changes that were taking place in Europe during this time. I think the knowledge that I did gain through these testimonies were very biased towards the case it was trying to present and the arguments of facts between the witnesses and prosecutor (Queen Elizabeth’s “Golden Age” for example) sometimes caused confusion on what really did happen at the time. I am not saying that the case should not have been biased, because how could you win if it wasn’t, but the trial itself did not really help me understand the impact of the reformation. Surprisingly, the organization and preparation for the trial was what brought me to enlightenment on the reformation. I learned a large amount of information about the key characters of this time that could be used to advocate Henry’s case, and researched the English reformation a great deal itself. The one thing that the trial has shown me is how one can look at history and criticize it with different opinions. And this trial has shown exactly that not every decision can be supported by evidence even in retrospect (Henry’s decision to separate from the Church), and people should not be quick to prosecute someone whose decision had very little impact (the Roman Catholic Church). Overall, it brought to me insight on a large scale.
The defense and prosecution were both successful in stating and arguing their sides. The prosecution was successful in arguing that King Henry VIII was a heretic, that he led the English people to damnation, and that he undermined the political, social, and economic fabric of Europe. However the prosecutions main subject that they used in order to prosecute King Henry was heresy. When King Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and the pope he defied Unum Sanctum, which stats that the pope’s word is the word of god, thus revealing that King Henry broke away from god when he broke away from the church. The prosecution was able to use this topic as a key element to prove that Henry was guilty.
The defense was able to show how King Henry was not the only person that was guilty of heresy. And even proved that many members of the church were heretics in their own way. The defense was able to reveal the truth from the prosecution during the cross examination asking questions that revealed the corruption and secrecy of the papal leaders.
As part of the defense I believe that we came up with good cross examination questions to reveal the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. I also believe that the defense worked well together and found major weaknesses against the prosecution which made our case, to prove King Henry's innocence more successful. A weakness of being the defense was the fact that we all knew before hand that Henry VIII was prosecuted as a heretic and that we were fighting a battle in which we were going to lose. It was hard to argue that Henry was not guilty knowing that he was.
Participating in the trial helped me understand more about the reformation. The trial involved many of the main characters that are associated with the reformation and I was able to learn a little about each as the trial progressed.
Post a Comment