"Pope's support for 1066 invasion" Topic

What practical difference did the Pope's support for William (the B) Duke of Normandy have?

Did the conquest have ramifications for the church in England?

Included on Ancient/ Renaissance discussion boards- as the general nature of support of Popes for such enterprises could be discussed.

He gave William a Medallion of the Blessed Virgin for luck?

I don't know the answer to this interesting question. I do know key positions in the Church were filled by the new regime post conquest on a systematic basis.

Was there not a gift of a papal banner? Was Stigand accussed of symony? Its years since I read about this.

Don't think it had much impact.

Different times, but ironically enough I think that William of Orange had similar at the Battle of the Boyne…

The biggest affect was in helping William recruit troops and giving him some legal cover for his claim to the throne.

William got a papal banner and some saintly relics and Harold was excommunicated.

David Howarth in "1066: The Year of Conquest" seemed to think that it may have demoralized Harold and possibly cost him support of some of the English Bishops. Though I don't know what real evidence there is of that. The English Bishops were already a pretty independent lot.

"The biggest affect was in helping William recruit troops and giving him some legal cover for his claim to the throne."

That's my understanding. That and legitimizing his claim among the regular folks.

I think it HIGHLY unlikely that William III would have had anything from a Pope, James II may have done but Popes didn't generally show much favour to Protestant monarchs fighting Catholic ones.

Edward had already installed some continental churchmen in the English church so there was already some conflict between church and king as well as within the church.

What Bob said, plus Howarth thought it may have partially explained why Harold rushed to battle with William instead of bidding his time a little, raising more troops from the fryd and straining William's supply stuation.

Either because he needed to have a victory quick to prove he was still rightful king ordained by heaven, or because he was throwing it up in the air (proof by battle) to prove to himself that he was still in God's favour.

Either way the Papal blessing probably did not hurt, and may have been significant, it is mostly speculation of course, but somewhat logical that it could have had any of these impacts.

GildasFacit – William of Orange was, IIRC an ally of the Papal States against the French – who were, of course, bankrolling James.

It's a long time (and more than a few kings and popes) between 1066 and the 1500's. There was also the minor issue of a change or two in royal families between them as well so the Pope's banner had no bearing on the later Church of England.

Wyatt

Early c. 11th century to the Renaissance, huge changes had occurred to weaken the RCC politically. The same "banner" given to William if it could have theoretically been given to someone in the 16th century would not have nearly the same clout. In the 11th century the Church was just starting its "Church Militant" push for increased political power (which reached its apogee with the Sicilian Vespers, which thoroughly discredited the Church as vain and politically self-serving – preaching continuous crsaudes against its perceived enemies amongst European Christians: e.g. the Sicilians, who had thrown out and murdered the French – Angevins – and thus angered the papacy who were backing the Angevins in Italy-Sicily: the Sicilians even tried to throw themselves on the papacy for protection after their "rebellion", but the Church had too much invested in backing the Angevins and refused; even calling in the Spanish as crusaders to punish the Sicilians. Everything went south politically for the Church after that). The Norman Conquest can be seen as a trial run of sorts for the First Crusade; much of the same rhetoric was used in both campaigns to get recruits.

The timing of the Church's favor of William is problematic. It is doubtful if many or even any in England knew of the ban and Harold's excommunication at the time (late September early October). But even if they had, I doubt that the "wayward" English would have put Rome over England's king. Harold was popular. It was his impetuosity which cost him a bigger army: had he waited his army would have become overwhelmingly large. But it was what William was doing – despoiling Harold's own lands and people – which caused him to move quickly to contain the Normans: not some fear that his subjects would reject him because of the pope excommunicating him and putting England under the Ban.

The English church had for generations been "drifting" further into independence; England has its own apostolic succession claims, which Henry VIII resorted to finally. The English Church was very lax compared to the recent papal movement to impose stricter rules on the clergy: such as forbidding them to marry. The English people didn't like seeing Frenchmen as their clergy: which increasingly had occurred under the Norman-loving Edward the Confessor. When Harold became king, virtually no French presence existed in England anymore; the English had seen them out….

While I differ with Doom about the Church's status and policy towards the Angevins, I think he is correct to point out that the English bishops were lukewarm to Rome at best before the Conquest.

It seems to me that the papal move was aimed more at getting in on the ground floor of the project in order to develop good relations with the anticipated new regime--part of the papacy's ongoing efforts to "tame" the Normans, which would of course broaden to include the Crusades.

Bangorstu – being an ally of the Papal States (who were hardly a power at that time) and riding on campaign as a champion of Protestantism beneath a Papal banner are hardly the same thing.

Like any king, William would ally with anyone who was his enemy's enemy – I'd bet he took whatever he could get in the way of cash off the Pope but little else.

Although it hardly seems likely that any Pope would be as insensitive (or even stupid) as to send such a gift I suppose it is remotely possible.

Gildas – the papal banner was carried by the Dutch Blue Guards, who were mostly Catholic.

At least according to:

link

Getting back to Hastings, I agree it wouldn't have made much difference. We're a bloody-minded bunch and always have been.

Slightly later, Llewellyn Mawr was excommunicated a couple of times, and that had no effect either on him or his support.

Stu – not one that I'd heard before, I thought the Blue Guard fought under William's personal banner at the Boyne as well as their new 'Anglicised' colours.

Many European armies at that time had a mix of religions within their ranks, nothing greatly significant in that.

You might consider checking that with another source, I couldn't find one that says the same (though they may be right). The chosen source may, however be a bit partisan as that encyclopedia is funded by a religious organisation.

Gildas – just Google William of Orange papal Banner, you'll find plenty of references…

Must admit it surprised me, and isn't something I'd assume many people in Ulster know!

As for Harold, it strikes me that the Norman French wer epossibly more fervent in their beliefs than us English, so whereas being excommunicated didn't affect Harold, it did make Williams recruting easier.

Well for the Orthodox Christian Church 1066 (at least Greek, Ecumenical and Antiochean) is the date from which England is considered Schismatic (you can see that in officeial timelines of the Patriarchates), as the old Enlgish Bishops who generally were considered still Orthodox by Constantinopole were replaced by Normans who were considered Schistamtic.

So while this may not had been a big deal for England itself religiously, it was conisdered a big deal for the Eastern Romans, as after 1066 England was considered lost and a victory for the schismatic Pope.

Orthodox THeologians tend to see the Normans with a very dim light, as lapdogs of the Papacy.

Reminds me of:

Malenkov: The Pope is very powerful.

Stalin: Oh? How many divisions does he have?

sure. Of course the nice think about Stalin is that he did not need the Popes blessing to be the legitimate "King". William needed it. We might not give a damn about such notions anymore, but they do seem to had taken them a tad more seriously then.

Stu – nothing in the first few pages of links is much more than sectarian spout but it does seem that there was a banner " .. expressing the support of the Italian people and the papacy …". Many of the sites translate that as 'a Papal banner' but I hardly think the two are the same.

I'll be honest and say that I didn't know that and it did surprise me to some extent.

It seems that the papacy funded the house of Orange at various times but that proof of funding for the campaign in England is lacking – some references imply that the proof was destroyed to avoid embarrassment. Believable.

Having a quick read through some of those links really makes you wonder at what some people will believe without a scrap of evidence.

@GildasFacit,I have to add my support to Bangorstu here – Orange was funded by the Papacy against the Catholic James II. Oh the irony!

Although it might be added that Philip II had papal blessing for the Armada campaign as well, much good it did him.

It seems a pattern – is it just that English monarchs get a bit full of their own importance and Rome tries to bring them back under its magnanimity… I guess that works for 1588 but probably not the other occasions. Politics.

"So while this may not had been a big deal for England itself religiously, it was conisdered a big deal for the Eastern Romans, as after 1066 England was considered lost and a victory for the schismatic Pope."

KTravlos did you mean to say "a big deal for the Eastern Orthodox"? A big deal for the Roman Catholics? I'm just not clear who the "Eastern Romans" are.

Did the English Bishops ever take a side when the Roman Church split from the rest of the the Orthodox Church in 1054? I always thought they left with the rest of the Roman Church at the time of "The Great Schism."

I always thought the weather (causing Harold to release the fyrds before the attack) and Harald Hardrada's incursion were the most important external factors in the Norman victory.

Jason

Eastern Romans were the Orthodox Empire centered on Constantinopole and the Emperor.

"Did the English Bishops ever take a side when the Roman Church split from the rest of the the Orthodox Church in 1054? " According to the official publicaitons of the Orthodox Patriarchates they did not. Mind you the early stages of the schism were not that clear cut. It took some time for the Schism to become a Schism (consumated in blood in 1182 and in 1204). Chances are the old Anglo-Saxon Bishops never weighted in, or even neccesariily heard anything more then that a Roman Bishop and a Constantinopole Patriarch anathematizsed each other.But the new Norman Bishops would be more astute to it because of the CHurch of France. Incidently, the Anglo-Saxons that came to Con/pole after Haestings were considered Orthodox by the Eastern Romans as were Christian Scandinavians.

Anyway this may very well be just Orthodox propaganda. But if it is, it is strongly held by theologians in the East.

Gotcha, just wanted to make sure I understood who you were referring to, I haven't seen the term Eastern Romans used by the Orthodox Church.

I agree with you that the Schism was a slow process and not a swift break, I just always understood the English Bishops to report to Rome so assumed they would have been on the Pope's side.

Also I wanted to clarify the last comment of my post when I mentioned the weather. I read somewhere that the weather delayed the Norman's invasion and due to the delay Harold had to let the fyrds go.

Jason

RE: William III and Papal Sponsorship

It would seem that much of the discussion regarding the possible funding of William III by Pope Innocent XI has come from recent examination of Vatican documents by two Italian scholars, one being Francesco Sorti, in their book "Imprimatur". The authors claim that family records of the Odescalchi Family (Innocent XI's family name) indicate that a cash grant was made through a family intermediary to William in the 1660's. The amount supposedly given was equal to the Vatican's entire budget deficit at the time, 150,000 scudi. The authors also state that William saw this as more of a loan, which he attempted to repay to the Vatican in 1689, after Inoccent XI's death, and the offer was refused as the then-current Vatican administration wanted nothing revealed about any possible alliance with a noted Protestant monarch or kingdom.

Several noted western scholars have already disputed the assertions made in "Imprimatur". The only english-language support for these assertions that I can find come from "wiki" type pages of obvious sectarian or political origination. Even the assertion that the Blue Guard was made up of either all or predominantly Catholics is not supported in Dutch references that I have found, only in these wiki-like sites (and indeed, Wikipedia itself, as a "stub"). There have been excellent articles on the Blue Guards in the Dutch journal "Armamentaria" (supporting the Dutch Staadts-Leger Museum) and a uniform reconstruction by the noted Dutch military artist "Smits" (Volume 23). There is also an excellent reenactment organisation for the Blue Guards after they returned to Dutch service, and it makes no mention of a Papal connection, Catholic enlistment, or a special banner.

At the request of a regular reader, I did a "study" of the Blue Guards with a painting guide for the "Louis Quatorze" blog that included their documented colours. Using John Childs' books, "Armamentaria", the Great Clothing Warrant of 1691, and Robert Hall's excellent CD's on the era as primary sources, several gaming-related secondary sources, and one vexillology site as a secondary source, I was able to come up with one "solid" recreation of the authorised colours (based primarily on the Clothing Warrant) and three slight variances based on interpretation from other sources. You may find and inspect my results here:

link

link

The only other reference to a specific colour being carried by the Blue Guard was William's personal orange banner described in various accounts of his landing at Brixham, Torbay, in 1688. While we will probably never "know" for certain what was carried in the field, or may have been used as an "unofficial colour", the inclusion of an "official" Papal banner seems highly unlikely. If, in fact, Innocent XI did give the cash to William for his wars against Louis's ambitions, then it is certainly possible that the Pope might have also sent a momento or field sign along to William, but as the "official" field sign for the Irish campaign was a "green sprig", even this apparently wasn't employed. And, during the Anglo-Franco-Dutch Wars of the 1670's and the subsequent Nine Years War (or LoA), the recognized Dutch field sign was the orange sash or the Dutch tri-color, with no mention that I have ever seen documented of a Papal banner or sign.

Certainly it is possible, and maybe even probable, that the Imperialist forces under Montecuccoli in the Rhineland against Turenne in the mid-1670's would have carried some type of Papal colours or field signs, but if so, then even these remain undocumented.

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

A further comment on the assertion that William's "Blue Guard" were of Catholic origin:

From John Childs' "The Army, James II, and The Glorious Rebellion", Manchester University Press, 1980, page 175:

"A large portion of the army was composed of French Huguenots who had fled from France both before and after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Some fifty-four officers in the Blue Guards were Huguenot and another thirty-four held commissions in the Dutch Life Guards, thus providing William with excellent propaganda, enabling him to invade England with the help of these obvious victims of Catholic absolutism."

And, from the site for the History of the Dutch Military Pipes & Drums:

"When marching towards the battlefield the Blue Guards' fifes and drums would play the tune "Lillibulero". This was a popular tune among the followers of William of Orange during the Irish and Scottish uprisings (1689-1702). The tune was used to mock James II and his Irish Catholic followers. The "Dutch Blue Guards" marched to that tune as well."

I also think it significant that the main on-line sources for the assertion that the Blue Guards were, indeed, Catholic in composition, do not cite any primary sources to justify this assertion. Given Childs' recognised expertise and authority in this era, and the fact that he uses Dalton's officers lists as one of his primary sources, I will remain unconvinced of any firm Catholic connection until I see some primary sources cited and verified.

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

Tom Hollands "Millennium" is an interesting read on the relationship between church and "politics" in the years across 1000AD.

It's just a bit of a heavier read than his "Persian Fire" and "Rubicon"

It might also be noted that this funding was supposedly first given in 1660 – when William was 10 years old. He is hardly likely to have been campaigning against the French or soliciting contributions at that age so I'd suppose that this was done by his advisors, if it was done at all.

Bill's explanations clarify and amplify what I was able to find quickly on the 'net – a few small facts and a huge amount of misinformation.

Wiki history can be a very useful starting point but it does need to be checked for references and its more unusual 'revelations' cross-checked with other sources before they are accepted.

Returning to the original point – I wasn't aware of that bit about the Orthodox church continuing to accept the English church after 1054. Rather surprising considering Edwards obvious sympathy with the continental church – though he was quite a revered figure, even during his lifetime, and the links between the Byzantine empire and England were still quite strong.

Yeah I've seen British Orthodox sites talking about English Orthodoxy upto the conquest, Aidan Hart's superb site on icons for example

burlesonbill gildas, sorry but this story about the Pope and William has its origins far longer ago than ‘Imprimatur'.

In 1933 a painting ,supposedly by Pieter van der Muelden court painter to William of Orange, then hanging at Stormont, was vandalised by Scottish Protestant League member and Glasgow City Councillor Charles Forster and his colleague Mary Ratcliffe. The object of their anger being the image of Pope Innocent XI blessing William of Orange with a Franciscan friar complete with rosary beads kneeling in front of William.

The plot however thickens as on further study it appears that there is no evidence Pieter van der Muelden was ever a painter at William's court and what is more it appears unlikely that the subject of the painting, which remains in Stormont's possession, is in fact William.
(History Ireland, Jan/Feb 2008)

So, again a possible/probable myth originating with the vendor of the painting, but certainly well before Sorti and Monaldi published.

Contemporaries had their suspicions too:
The Papal nuntio's ‘satisfaction' at William's ‘accession' to the English throne in 1688 is commented on in ‘Transactions of the Royal Historical Society' New Series Vol.18 1904, p.61, referencing Lexington Papers p.339 ‘Hop's Journal'.(Cornelius Hop was the United Provinces Ambassador to the Imperial Court).

And in Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 63, No. 251 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 231-242 Published by: Irish Province of the Society of Jesus, J G Simms in ‘Remembering 1690' notes that ‘ how much help was given by Innocent XI to William and his allies has been a matter of controversy, complicated by some forgeries.' whilst acknowledging that ‘it was generally believed that he had given financial aid, and suspected that William had diverted this aid for his own purposes. The belief was shared by Irish Catholics, who felt embarrassed and perplexed by the situation.'

Simms then cites two accounts by Irish Catholic writers: Plunkett and O'Kelly. Plunkett, from the Pale, explained that the Pope had given money to the Dutch to hire an army to resist the French, and this, coinciding with William's military preparations for the invasion of England, gave rise to the vulgar error that the Pope had sent money to the Prince of Orange to invade England- 'a ridiculous whimsy', according to Plunkett.

Colonel Charles O'Kelly, from County Galway, says ‘Even the sovereign pontiff. .. moved by [Louis's] vast success. . joined the league and took an active part; and a considerable subsidy which he had contributed towards the invasion [of France] was partially applied towards raising troops to assist in the expulsion of [James II] . . however, the sovereign pontiff had no intention of removing from his temporal kingdom the prince whom he had so lately received into the hope of obtaining a heavenly one; but the artful and ambitious [William] outwitted and persuaded both him and the other chiefs of the league.'

No sign of a Papal banner here but the rumours of Papal money funding William's bid for the English Crown start early, interestingly from both sides of the political and religious divide.
Guy

"Reminds me of:
Malenkov: The Pope is very powerful.
Stalin: Oh? How many divisions does he have?"

And where's Stalin and his proletarian paradise now?
In the meantime, the Catholic Church has tripled in size since his death.

And where's Stalin and his proletarian paradise now?
In the meantime, the Catholic Church has tripled in size since his death.

And is continuing to loose ground to Mohammad.

And both are eaten up by modernity slowly slowly (yes radical islam is a reaction to modernity, just asthe counter-reformation was). Thus the deists and atheists shall inherit the earth! Happy? I know I will get dawghoused for this :)

And the Pope had divisions at that era. The Holy See would be feilding armies up to the 1860s.

"Free K Travlos"!…

I don't think papal armies after 1525 ever amounted to a full division…maybe a brigade, at best.

Guy,

I was familiar with the story of the "van der Muelden" painting, and with some of the other sources cited relating to William's possible mis-use (or at least re-direction) of Papal funding. And, as you point out, the rumours were sometimes rampant from both camps. I credit much of this to a grain of truth and a mountain of propaganda and assumptions. I will admit to not having read "Imprimatur" yet, only reviews and interviews with Sorti, however, much of the current "wave" of wiki-like "information" regarding the carrying of a Papal banner and to the Blue Guard being a Catholic unit seems to have arisen since the publication of "Imprimatur" and the publicity campaign surrounding it.

I don't doubt that funds were directed towards the Dutch Republic, or their allies, by the Vatican, who did greatly fear Louis's "brand" of Catholocism and his ambitions. What I seriously question is the timeline put forward by these wiki's and in the interviews I've read with Sorti. As has already been pointed out, if the timeline is correct, then William would have been between 10 and his early teens when Innocent XII bestowed his financial aid in the 1660's. It should also be noted that in the early 1660's the Republic had just finished (through their Navy) meddling about in the First Northern War of 1655-60 and were actively fighting the English in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War of 1665-67, not the French at that time. Also, unless the Pope was extremely prescient, in the 1660's his "bet" on William would have been a poor one. The Estates of Holland, through the position of the Grand Pensionary, had refused to appoint a Stadtholder from 1650 until 1672, when the French invaded and overran the first line of defense. In more ways than one, William's ascendancy to power had more to do with Louis' ambitions and advances than with Papal support.

Two other points bother me with regard to the Blue Guard and William's supposed Catholic "interests":

First, with the excellent first-person accounts of the landing at Brixham, Torbay, and of the Guards crossing of the River Boyne at Oldbridge, there are no first-person references to a Papal Banner. However, there are numerous accounts of the presence of William's personal orange banner, the new anglicised colours of the regiment, and the official description of the colours in the Great Clothing Warrant of 1691.

Second, if the Blue Guard had indeed been composed of primarily Catholics, how was it that they served under so many Huguenot officers, as recorded by Dalton in his "English Army Lists and Commission Registers, 1661-1714"? I have also seen the assertion made that the Blue Guards were "expelled" from England due to this supposed Catholic makeup of the Regiment. This is simply not true. The Regiment was "expelled", as such, by the general Disbandmant of the Army under the House of Commons direction and the Blue Guards were returned to the Netherlands where they were formally incorporated into the Dutch Army in 1702 after William's death.

True or not, however, once again the Pope's funding (assuming it did exist) would not seem to have mattered much to William, given his ruthless purge of Catholic officers from the ranks, even those that had shown loyalty during the Glorious Rebellion and given good service in the later Franco-Dutch War.

Sadly, there seems to be entirely too much conjecture and "conspiracy theory" tied to many of these stories and assumptions. Much like other great conspiracy theories, the lack of "specific proof" against the conspiracy seems to convince some that the conspiracy therefore must exist.

Bill
Sir William the Aged
warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com

"Reminds me of:
Malenkov: The Pope is very powerful.
Stalin: Oh? How many divisions does he have?"

Seems the Pope had quite a lot of divisions in 1066.

As to the Church's (including Mohammad) their paradise is in death- I'll stick with Wilco Johnson's version.

I'm a bit late to this one in terms of William iii but if memory serves there were a few Catholics in the Blue Guards but the soldiers of that unit were mainly Protestant. I think the Papal banner is a myth. Never the less the Papal celebration of William's victory at the Boyne seems real enough.

William was a complex character and personaly was very inclined to tolerance of Catholics within his domains. Of course he was a politician and so did some very nasty things but there are no good historical grounds to think of him as some sort of Protestant ultra.

I'm baffled by "And is continuing to loose ground to Mohammad." What do you mean? There is no large scale Catholic conversion to Islam occuring that I'm aware of. More over the Orthodox and Copts (the latter against the odds) seem to maintain themselves pretty well. In fact I would guess the Orthodox Church in Russia is doing pretty good. So do tell what do you mean?

Yeah, news to me. Meanwhile Islam is hitting conflict as its apostasy laws clash with the values of the rest of the planet & Many Muslims convert to Christianity in spite of the risks.

The only place Christianity has had any sort of setback is Europe. On every other continent bar Antarctica its expanding

I thought it was Hitler who made the crack about the Pope's divisions?

'How many divisions does the Pope have'

I think it's Stalin- I seem to remember old 'Tankies' liked the quote as trumped Mao's 'Power comes from a barrel of a gun'.

Tankies: Stalinist Commies- who liked 'Barrack room' Socialism and threatening you with 'Uncle Joe's bayonets' if I recall correctly.

I see them now with memories eye . Yes it was indeed 'Uncle Joe'.

Both are making gains in areas of the world were modernity has not yet taken hold in full (i.e Africa, the Middle East). Give it time and everything will be like Europe when it comes to religion.

Oooo! The Dawghaus is calling (damn Bill's eyes, when will this silliness end?)….

To prison to prison! Save me from myself!

Oh the good all days Coopersteve. Not North America, and in Central and South America it is simply changing from one form to another.

KTravlos why would you think that(post before last?)

"One can assume it's the usual doom and gloom Eur-Arabia nonsense.."

Yeah I guess so. No evidence for it anyhow that I know of. I used to have to know this sort of thing and I guess old habits die hard so I keep up.

@dapeters
because that is what happened in Europe, Latin America and North America. It is what is happening in Asia right now.

People may forget it, but Europe was a very nasty place to live in and grow up, or be a woman up to almost the 19th century. Honor Killings, religious prosecution, superstition, intolerance, intense hatreds. All that nice stuff. But free trade/liberal democracy/ and scientism (modernity) changed the way people think. Part of it is material-> i.e the three create the most powefull and rich states, and provide individuals withbetter chances of meeting their needs, but part of it was ideational.

Some would say that christianity was the key to these. Wrong (and I am christian). Christianity exactly due to these influences suffered reformation and counter reformation and is still not done adapting.

Look at China, in the last 10 years there are huge changes in dating rituals, and the palce of women in society (things that communism failed to bring about).

The reason that this areas of the world have a hard time entering modernity is the resource course. Too much oil, diamonds and otehr things that dampen the need for liberalisation and can be used to maintain primitive life styles. Once those recources become obselete or less improtant to survive economically those states will have to liberalise their economy, and as Friedman pointed out, that will lead to political liberalisation, and scientism.

The problem in Europe right now is that people are impatient. Impatient to do away with religion, imaptient for immigrants to assimilate. This things take time. They don't happen every day. And because they are impatient they get scared from the refusal to assimilate. Assimilation as long as discrimination is not legal will work. It has in the past and will do so in the future. It just takes time. It is also not good that particularism and short-sightness have taken hold.Again impatiance.

You seem to think 'modernity' is inevitable K Travlos it is not. When I read news papers in the UK I see that the poor are twice as likely to die before age 65 than the rich and that functional iliteracy and inumeracy is running at 17% among school leavers. 'Modernity' was doing better on both these scores when I was a youth. Progress is neither inevitable or inexorable.

Well we can fire away slective readings on history or curent affairs all we want on this matter and come to nowhere (why not comapre those figures with 1850 England?or with 2001 Sweden? or comapre both with there 1850s counterparts?). Frankly ,and with all respect, I am not paid to conduct the large scale study of the effects of modernity and it's inevitability or not taht would be required to provide desicive proof (and even then what if we disagree on criteria of judgement? I am a Lakatosian. What if you are a Traditionalist? or a Laudunian? Or a Foucaltian?). So let us just leave it at the your word vs. mine and your selective evidence vs. mine selective evidence stage. Except if you want to fund a study :) I could use the money and the arguemnt is interesting enough that I wouldn't mind sacrificing some work-years on it.

This is not a dismissive nob. I just don't have the time or are paid to sit down and conduct for 2-5 years a scientific study of the determinants of modernity or the effects of modernity. There have been many studies on that and they tend to inform my position (you can look them up in the relvent socilogicial and poli-sci literture for both sides). The counter-arguemnt exists but tends to be less empirically robust.

dapeters asked me why I think what I thought. I gave him an answer. If he had asked for scientifc evidence then I would just give him a bilbiography.

Well we can fire away slective readings on history or curent affairs…

You can, but you MAY only on the Bluey Fezzy, or to yourself in the DawgHaus….