WEBVTT
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:02.680
Welcome to the Second Thought for the Day podcast.
00:00:03.240 --> 00:00:06.040
We fill that rather niche spot for anyone who
00:00:06.040 --> 00:00:08.720
has ever been even mildly irritated by Thought
00:00:08.720 --> 00:00:11.740
for the Day on Radio 4 and wondered why no one
00:00:11.740 --> 00:00:14.119
was doing anything about it or even holding them
00:00:14.119 --> 00:00:18.859
to account. This is a throwback episode. We revisit
00:00:18.859 --> 00:00:22.120
an earlier review. We knew when we started that
00:00:22.120 --> 00:00:24.160
we'd likely make the odd mistake and in the spirit
00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:25.920
of keeping an open mind we went back through
00:00:25.920 --> 00:00:28.579
the feedback we had to see what leads there were.
00:00:28.859 --> 00:00:32.939
for further consideration. We found one. The
00:00:32.939 --> 00:00:36.439
first one. The first thought for the day that
00:00:36.439 --> 00:00:40.780
we reviewed was presented by Angela Tilby. Tilby
00:00:40.780 --> 00:00:44.979
is a retired Anglican priest in Oxford. There
00:00:44.979 --> 00:00:47.579
was much wrong with her contribution that day,
00:00:47.659 --> 00:00:50.880
the 10th of April. There was though a niggling
00:00:50.880 --> 00:00:53.539
doubt at second thought, shared by one or two
00:00:53.539 --> 00:00:55.420
of those who'd been kind enough to provide feedback,
00:00:55.679 --> 00:00:58.380
that we'd perhaps been a touch harsh in our...
00:00:58.490 --> 00:01:01.009
criticism of Angela's account of how theology
00:01:01.009 --> 00:01:03.250
of marriage was brought out of the dark ages
00:01:03.250 --> 00:01:06.170
by an English archbishop. Now let's be clear,
00:01:06.349 --> 00:01:09.310
it wasn't. This archbishop made several important
00:01:09.310 --> 00:01:11.769
changes, but the vows and the theology behind
00:01:11.769 --> 00:01:14.810
them were for the most part unchanged. At least
00:01:14.810 --> 00:01:16.650
they were in all the ways that are relevant to
00:01:16.650 --> 00:01:19.209
what Tilby said. The doubt we had centred on
00:01:19.209 --> 00:01:21.290
whether or not we'd taken too general an approach
00:01:21.290 --> 00:01:24.129
to dismissing Angela Tilby's claim that Cramner
00:01:24.129 --> 00:01:26.689
had revolutionised the theory of marriage, when
00:01:26.689 --> 00:01:29.730
perhaps Tilby was just making a point more focused
00:01:29.730 --> 00:01:33.329
on the words of the ceremony. Here's what we
00:01:33.329 --> 00:01:37.510
said at the time. We were led to believe that
00:01:37.510 --> 00:01:40.879
medieval clerics in England saw marriage as somewhat
00:01:40.879 --> 00:01:43.079
removed from the church and little more than
00:01:43.079 --> 00:01:46.040
a contractual means of reigning in fornication
00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:49.900
and enforcing social order. We're then invited
00:01:49.900 --> 00:01:53.319
to contrast this dark spell of matrimonial theology
00:01:53.319 --> 00:01:57.099
with the enlightenment that accompanied the first
00:01:57.099 --> 00:02:01.659
English prayer book of 1549. The prevailing requisites
00:02:01.659 --> 00:02:04.359
of fornication, abatement and societal control
00:02:05.180 --> 00:02:06.959
were there but now accompanied for the first
00:02:06.959 --> 00:02:09.280
time by a suggestion that those getting married
00:02:09.280 --> 00:02:14.020
should love and cherish each other. Quite frankly,
00:02:14.199 --> 00:02:19.919
rubbish. I'm not an expert, but there's a lot
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:22.159
of straightforward and verifiable information
00:02:22.159 --> 00:02:24.560
out there for anyone with 20 minutes to spare
00:02:24.560 --> 00:02:27.340
and a passing familiarity with the internet.
00:02:27.759 --> 00:02:30.639
For the vast majority of Christian history before
00:02:30.639 --> 00:02:34.150
1549 in England, direction for the church was
00:02:34.150 --> 00:02:38.909
provided exclusively by Rome, and marriage had
00:02:38.909 --> 00:02:41.889
long been considered by the Roman church to be
00:02:41.889 --> 00:02:45.650
an act of divine significance, at least since
00:02:45.650 --> 00:02:47.870
a thing called the Fourth Lateran Council of
00:02:47.870 --> 00:02:53.069
1215. Since then, marriage was understood to
00:02:53.069 --> 00:02:56.349
be a reflection of the union between the church
00:02:56.349 --> 00:03:01.150
and Christ, of some importance, love and cherishment,
00:03:01.819 --> 00:03:04.879
had been somewhat obviously front and centre
00:03:04.879 --> 00:03:08.620
in marriage since long, long before the scribblings
00:03:08.620 --> 00:03:12.599
of an English archbishop in 1549 were turned
00:03:12.599 --> 00:03:17.759
into a prayer book. So we set about fact -checking
00:03:17.759 --> 00:03:22.599
her and us and what we discovered was astonishing.
00:03:23.419 --> 00:03:27.099
Tilby had been much worse than we'd appreciated
00:03:27.099 --> 00:03:29.699
at the time. It was clear that our criticism
00:03:29.699 --> 00:03:32.620
of her claims about Cranmer were not only justified,
00:03:32.860 --> 00:03:37.060
but spectacularly incomplete. That said, our
00:03:37.060 --> 00:03:39.020
comments on Tilby's claim about the use of love
00:03:39.020 --> 00:03:42.280
and cherish was slightly off. We'd conflated
00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:45.139
the content of the vows with the content of Cranmer's
00:03:45.139 --> 00:03:47.400
little sermon on why marriage was ordained by
00:03:47.400 --> 00:03:50.840
God. In our defence, Tilby started that, but
00:03:50.840 --> 00:03:52.879
we remain thankful this error made no material
00:03:52.879 --> 00:03:55.280
difference. Everything else we criticised was
00:03:55.280 --> 00:03:59.879
bang on. On to those that we missed. These were
00:03:59.879 --> 00:04:02.259
all in a relatively short section on how Tilby
00:04:02.259 --> 00:04:04.060
described the changes to the marriage ceremony
00:04:04.060 --> 00:04:07.719
in England in the 1500s. In the theology of the
00:04:07.719 --> 00:04:10.159
Middle Ages, marriage was a kind of contract,
00:04:10.419 --> 00:04:13.300
a way of ordering society and holding lust in
00:04:13.300 --> 00:04:17.920
check. It was. It still is. As far as the Church
00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:20.639
is concerned, nothing here has changed. Tilby's
00:04:20.639 --> 00:04:24.480
implication that it has is false. Marriages took
00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:27.220
place in the church porch, as if they were half
00:04:27.220 --> 00:04:31.420
-worldly and pragmatic, half -holy. Vows were
00:04:31.420 --> 00:04:34.740
indeed exchanged in the porch, but to suggest
00:04:34.740 --> 00:04:38.439
this diluted their holiness is groundless speculation.
00:04:38.500 --> 00:04:42.540
Indeed, Tilby, on this point, could hardly be
00:04:42.540 --> 00:04:45.459
more wrong. In the First English Prayer Book
00:04:45.459 --> 00:04:49.379
of 1549, a more positive view was stated. No,
00:04:49.439 --> 00:04:53.139
it was not. Tilby here makes a veiled false claim
00:04:53.139 --> 00:04:56.600
that there was something negative about the porch
00:04:56.600 --> 00:05:00.120
vow pre -Cranmer marriage service. The ceremony
00:05:00.120 --> 00:05:02.899
was brought into the body of the church. It was,
00:05:03.100 --> 00:05:05.519
but not because Cranmer thought this would make
00:05:05.519 --> 00:05:08.160
weddings more holy. And was now accompanied by
00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:11.480
a compulsory little sermon on why God had ordained
00:05:11.480 --> 00:05:14.759
marriage. Cramner's prayer book made a significant
00:05:14.759 --> 00:05:18.439
addition to one of the wedding vows on the God
00:05:18.439 --> 00:05:21.819
-ordained estate of holy matrimony, so some sort
00:05:21.819 --> 00:05:24.339
of exposition in the service itself was likely
00:05:24.339 --> 00:05:27.800
felt necessary. Three reasons were given. First,
00:05:27.879 --> 00:05:30.240
to provide for the procreation of children and
00:05:30.240 --> 00:05:32.180
to ensure they were brought up in the fear of
00:05:32.180 --> 00:05:35.019
the Lord. Second, for the avoidance of the sin
00:05:35.019 --> 00:05:38.980
of fornication, sex outside marriage. So far,
00:05:38.980 --> 00:05:41.939
so good. But then Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop
00:05:41.939 --> 00:05:44.199
of Canterbury who drafted the new service, added
00:05:44.199 --> 00:05:47.759
something quite new. Marriage was instituted
00:05:47.759 --> 00:05:50.980
for the mutual society, help and comfort that
00:05:50.980 --> 00:05:54.079
the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity
00:05:54.079 --> 00:05:58.660
and adversity. Except this was not new. It had
00:05:58.660 --> 00:06:02.160
been in the vows themselves for centuries. The
00:06:02.160 --> 00:06:06.240
new bit from Cranmer came next. But inexplicably,
00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:10.560
Tilby... left it out. She went straight on to
00:06:10.560 --> 00:06:14.339
be wrong about something else. Cranmer also added
00:06:14.339 --> 00:06:17.439
the words to love and to cherish to the marriage
00:06:17.439 --> 00:06:21.459
vows. Technically, it could be argued, this is
00:06:21.459 --> 00:06:24.000
correct but to do so would obscure the truth
00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:26.240
of the changes Cranmer made. Love and cherish
00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:28.379
were very much part of the wedding rite long
00:06:28.379 --> 00:06:32.819
before 1549. The historian Dermot McCulloch suggests
00:06:32.819 --> 00:06:35.500
that we owe these additions to Cranmer's own
00:06:35.500 --> 00:06:40.000
happy experience of marriage. No. While the experience
00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:43.199
of Cranmer's two marriages almost certainly informed
00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:45.160
his approach to the revision of this service,
00:06:45.439 --> 00:06:49.279
the statement from Tilby is misleading. Apparently,
00:06:49.319 --> 00:06:53.459
deliberately so. It is true to say that it's
00:06:53.459 --> 00:06:56.560
possible to infer a suggestion from McCulloch
00:06:56.560 --> 00:06:59.160
on what Cranmer drew from his own experience
00:06:59.160 --> 00:07:02.879
of marriage. It is not true to say that McCulloch
00:07:02.879 --> 00:07:07.139
made this suggestion. We never imagined that
00:07:07.139 --> 00:07:10.199
we'd have to read a biography of a dead bishop
00:07:10.199 --> 00:07:13.600
to fact -check a retired priest. Life is full
00:07:13.600 --> 00:07:16.839
of surprises. It is, though, an excellent book.
00:07:17.139 --> 00:07:20.480
The Canon Tilby can barely type without unjustifiable
00:07:20.480 --> 00:07:23.680
speculation and blatant falsehoods filling the
00:07:23.680 --> 00:07:27.730
pages. In fewer than 200 words, Tilby manages
00:07:27.730 --> 00:07:31.569
to stuff a calvacade of errors that we didn't
00:07:31.569 --> 00:07:34.629
spot the first time around. Let's take each in
00:07:34.629 --> 00:07:39.269
turn. Tilby's presentation of a 1549 Enlightenment
00:07:39.269 --> 00:07:42.709
in matrimonial theology is a simple strawman
00:07:42.709 --> 00:07:45.829
fallacy. The contrast that she describes between
00:07:45.829 --> 00:07:47.810
the Middle Ages and what came later does not
00:07:47.810 --> 00:07:51.550
exist, at least not as Tilby presents it. Attacking
00:07:51.550 --> 00:07:53.329
one side or other of an invented comparison,
00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:57.699
is cowardly and dishonest. We should, though,
00:07:57.800 --> 00:08:01.480
pause for a second on straw man. From experience,
00:08:01.699 --> 00:08:03.600
it's one of the least well understood of the
00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:06.800
common logical fallacies. Oddly, humans, at least
00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:09.319
several large subsets of humans, appear to have
00:08:09.319 --> 00:08:11.540
a natural ability to use a straw man fallacy
00:08:11.540 --> 00:08:14.740
to their advantage, despite no knowledge of what
00:08:14.740 --> 00:08:18.220
it is. Rather than tackle the subject of a discussion,
00:08:18.519 --> 00:08:22.170
someone using a straw man will project an invented
00:08:22.170 --> 00:08:25.189
alternative discussion on the other person as
00:08:25.189 --> 00:08:27.709
though they'd said it and then attack the projection
00:08:27.709 --> 00:08:31.490
instead. They stand up and then they knock down
00:08:31.490 --> 00:08:35.029
the straw man, leaving the relevant subject well
00:08:35.029 --> 00:08:38.769
alone. For example, someone says, blue is cool.
00:08:39.389 --> 00:08:41.909
And the person they're talking to says, why do
00:08:41.909 --> 00:08:46.009
you hate red? The subject here established by
00:08:46.009 --> 00:08:49.000
the first person is blue and its alleged coolness.
00:08:49.179 --> 00:08:51.659
But instead of engaging with that subject, the
00:08:51.659 --> 00:08:54.080
respondent creates a fake subject, the straw
00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:56.519
man, which is the hatred of red, which is then
00:08:56.519 --> 00:08:59.059
used to make an irrelevant and groundless allegation
00:08:59.059 --> 00:09:02.899
about the first person. Now clearly, no one's
00:09:02.899 --> 00:09:05.120
actually arguing about red and blue. More common
00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:08.360
straw man arguments are similar to these examples.
00:09:09.220 --> 00:09:12.480
Politician 1. We have a problem that can only
00:09:12.480 --> 00:09:14.879
be solved by giving our schools more resources
00:09:14.879 --> 00:09:18.700
for art and for music. Politician 2. This is
00:09:18.700 --> 00:09:21.379
outrageous. My opponent wants to undermine our
00:09:21.379 --> 00:09:25.740
schools by defunding maths and science. Politician
00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:29.279
A. We must cut carbon emissions to prevent a
00:09:29.279 --> 00:09:32.679
climate catastrophe. Politician B. There is no
00:09:32.679 --> 00:09:35.179
way our economy can support the immediate banning
00:09:35.179 --> 00:09:38.519
of petrol and diesel cars. Using a straw man
00:09:38.519 --> 00:09:42.620
argument is an inherently dishonest act. There
00:09:42.620 --> 00:09:45.779
is an implicit acknowledgement. in every example
00:09:45.779 --> 00:09:48.139
that the user does not have the arguments or
00:09:48.139 --> 00:09:51.059
perhaps the skill to tackle the actual subject
00:09:51.059 --> 00:09:53.440
so rather than capitulate or acknowledge the
00:09:53.440 --> 00:09:55.960
merits of the other side they frustrate understanding
00:09:55.960 --> 00:09:59.240
they derail the debate and they start a battle
00:09:59.240 --> 00:10:02.740
against reason another form uses the straw man
00:10:02.740 --> 00:10:05.840
to advance a fallacious position for example
00:10:06.549 --> 00:10:08.730
We've known for decades that camembert causes
00:10:08.730 --> 00:10:11.090
heart disease. It's important to note that Edam
00:10:11.090 --> 00:10:14.330
was not involved in any of those studies of camembert
00:10:14.330 --> 00:10:16.769
and it has not been implicated as a hair loss
00:10:16.769 --> 00:10:20.429
cheese. Perhaps now we can live as hairy Edam
00:10:20.429 --> 00:10:22.529
cheese eaters in the comfort of this knowledge.
00:10:23.579 --> 00:10:25.799
Presumably, a representative of the Dutch dairy
00:10:25.799 --> 00:10:27.980
industry thinks that she can sway the camembert
00:10:27.980 --> 00:10:30.919
eaters to try Edam, so she opens with a plausible
00:10:30.919 --> 00:10:33.639
but false assertion, and then she leans on the
00:10:33.639 --> 00:10:36.580
consequences of this falsehood while adding others
00:10:36.580 --> 00:10:41.679
to promote a different cheese. This, if you'll
00:10:41.679 --> 00:10:45.139
forgive the cheese, is precisely what Tilby does.
00:10:45.399 --> 00:10:48.299
Her straw man is the dark theology of the Middle
00:10:48.299 --> 00:10:51.139
Ages, which she contrasts with a positive change
00:10:51.139 --> 00:10:53.899
brought about by a prayer book. In fairness,
00:10:54.059 --> 00:10:57.600
this change did somewhat neatly coincide with
00:10:57.600 --> 00:11:00.460
the end of the Middle Ages, as it's usually understood,
00:11:00.639 --> 00:11:03.139
but this is a correlation, not a causation, and
00:11:03.139 --> 00:11:05.220
more pertinently, the contrast Tilby is claiming
00:11:05.220 --> 00:11:09.659
simply doesn't exist. It is an invention to promote
00:11:09.659 --> 00:11:13.200
Archbishop Cramner, his prayer book, and an awful
00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:16.620
lot of other Anglican stuff. Tilby casts the
00:11:16.620 --> 00:11:20.379
Middle Ages as the before and as inferior. Specifically,
00:11:20.379 --> 00:11:22.480
it's the theology of the Middle Ages on which
00:11:22.480 --> 00:11:26.500
Tilby throws shade. The contrast, if there is
00:11:26.500 --> 00:11:29.059
one, is not between the theology of the Middle
00:11:29.059 --> 00:11:31.340
Ages and what came from Cramner. The contrast
00:11:31.340 --> 00:11:33.639
is between the established doctrine of the Church
00:11:33.639 --> 00:11:36.399
of Rome and the Reformation ideas that were bubbling
00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:39.379
across Northern Europe. Tilby is simply slinging
00:11:39.379 --> 00:11:42.559
mud at Catholicism, notably without any justification.
00:11:43.399 --> 00:11:46.200
Now, in England, these Reformation ideas were
00:11:46.200 --> 00:11:50.419
given a significant... constitutional lift when
00:11:50.419 --> 00:11:52.980
the Pope told Henry VIII that his marriage to
00:11:52.980 --> 00:11:55.379
Catherine of Aragon would not be annulled. Now
00:11:55.379 --> 00:11:58.779
Henry was in need of an heir and for that he
00:11:58.779 --> 00:12:02.559
was in need of a wife, a new wife and hence a
00:12:02.559 --> 00:12:05.740
new church, one that would not be subject to
00:12:05.740 --> 00:12:08.700
the whims of the Pope. Cranmer, the reformer,
00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:11.320
was hired as Archbishop and this new Archbishop
00:12:11.320 --> 00:12:16.580
clearly saw his chance and took it. Back to Angela.
00:12:16.759 --> 00:12:19.860
She suggested that pre -Reformation marriage
00:12:19.860 --> 00:12:23.139
was inferior, merely a contract to order society
00:12:23.139 --> 00:12:26.299
and to keep lust in check. Apparently, marriages
00:12:26.299 --> 00:12:29.360
were also then insufficiently godly. Now this
00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:31.519
godliness deficit is something that Angela quite
00:12:31.519 --> 00:12:34.720
incorrectly inferred from pre -Reformation vows
00:12:34.720 --> 00:12:37.700
being exchanged at the church door before the
00:12:37.700 --> 00:12:40.960
ceremony moved inside. This happened for two
00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:43.730
reasons. One practical. and one symbolic. The
00:12:43.730 --> 00:12:46.190
practical reason was so that the exchanging of
00:12:46.190 --> 00:12:49.789
the vows was public. Those outside and inside
00:12:49.789 --> 00:12:51.490
the church would hear the vows and all would
00:12:51.490 --> 00:12:54.070
have an opportunity before the making of those
00:12:54.070 --> 00:12:57.110
vows to raise an impediment, and thus making
00:12:57.110 --> 00:12:59.090
themselves enormously popular with the bride
00:12:59.090 --> 00:13:01.049
and the groom and whomever was paying for the
00:13:01.049 --> 00:13:04.870
reception. It had nothing to do with Angela Tilby's
00:13:04.870 --> 00:13:07.429
muddled musings on the half -holiness of medieval
00:13:07.429 --> 00:13:10.789
marriages and inappropriate use of the word pragmatic.
00:13:12.330 --> 00:13:15.610
to the symbolic now somewhat obviously the church
00:13:15.610 --> 00:13:18.549
doors symbolize the threshold between the secular
00:13:18.549 --> 00:13:22.429
and the sacred once the vows were made the couple
00:13:22.429 --> 00:13:25.210
would cross the threshold into the sacred space
00:13:25.210 --> 00:13:28.149
of the church from the secular exterior while
00:13:28.149 --> 00:13:30.750
also entering the holy sacrament of marriage
00:13:30.750 --> 00:13:34.289
thresholds appear elsewhere in marriage traditions
00:13:34.289 --> 00:13:38.450
these though hinge on folklore that thresholds
00:13:38.450 --> 00:13:41.639
were inhabited by evil spirits Weirder still,
00:13:41.860 --> 00:13:45.000
that the soles of the feet of women were somehow
00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:48.279
vulnerable to these spirits. Hence the groom
00:13:48.279 --> 00:13:50.379
would carry the bride over the threshold of the
00:13:50.379 --> 00:13:53.000
matrimonial home to prevent the bride from becoming
00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:57.600
possessed through her feet. Men's feet presumably
00:13:57.600 --> 00:14:01.500
featured some natural spirit repellent, and as
00:14:01.500 --> 00:14:03.399
far -fetched as it all sounds, I'm sure there
00:14:03.399 --> 00:14:05.480
are many brides who will testify to the repellent
00:14:05.480 --> 00:14:08.909
nature of their husband's feet. In the first
00:14:08.909 --> 00:14:11.950
English prayer book of 1549, a more positive
00:14:11.950 --> 00:14:14.549
view was stated. Ceremony was brought into the
00:14:14.549 --> 00:14:17.110
body of the church and was now accompanied by
00:14:17.110 --> 00:14:20.409
a compulsory little sermon on why God had ordained
00:14:20.409 --> 00:14:23.169
marriage. Angela's claim that this new prayer
00:14:23.169 --> 00:14:26.309
book gave a more positive view is hogwash. And
00:14:26.309 --> 00:14:29.009
as we've seen, her attempt to justify this claim
00:14:29.009 --> 00:14:32.929
by the change in location for the vows only compounds
00:14:32.929 --> 00:14:37.240
that falsehood. Several of Angela's errors appear
00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:40.240
rooted in an approach to research that never
00:14:40.240 --> 00:14:43.620
ventured beyond Wikipedia. So first, some background.
00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:48.019
The revision to marriage on which Tilby was commenting
00:14:48.019 --> 00:14:51.299
was called the solemnization of matrimony, part
00:14:51.299 --> 00:14:54.539
of this 1549 prayer book. The service described
00:14:54.539 --> 00:14:57.019
in the new prayer book, though, was in substantial
00:14:57.019 --> 00:14:59.960
part simply a translation of its predecessor
00:14:59.960 --> 00:15:03.840
from Latin to English. Now that predecessor was
00:15:03.840 --> 00:15:06.110
the order for the consecration of marriage in
00:15:06.110 --> 00:15:08.370
a thing called the Sarum Rite, which was the
00:15:08.370 --> 00:15:11.129
prevailing church manual of the time. Sarum denoted
00:15:11.129 --> 00:15:13.450
Salisbury, which was the diocese in which the
00:15:13.450 --> 00:15:16.649
most widely adopted manual was developed. The
00:15:16.649 --> 00:15:18.809
Sarum Rite was in Latin, but it instructed the
00:15:18.809 --> 00:15:21.570
priest to conduct the marriage in his mother
00:15:21.570 --> 00:15:24.330
tongue. The Sarum Rite was very similar to the
00:15:24.330 --> 00:15:27.049
rite on which it was based of the Church of Rome.
00:15:27.490 --> 00:15:31.450
Now Cranmer was an enthusiastic Protestant reformer.
00:15:31.850 --> 00:15:34.529
This enthusiasm infused an extensive operation
00:15:34.529 --> 00:15:37.169
to anglicise the Church in England under his
00:15:37.169 --> 00:15:40.230
direction as Archbishop. Reformers put emphasis
00:15:40.230 --> 00:15:43.990
on accessibility and understanding. English was
00:15:43.990 --> 00:15:46.909
favoured over Latin. Congregational participation
00:15:46.909 --> 00:15:49.490
was encouraged, with much less prominence for
00:15:49.490 --> 00:15:52.389
ritual, for the centrality of the priest and
00:15:52.389 --> 00:15:55.720
the altar. It was the end of the road in this
00:15:55.720 --> 00:15:58.279
English church for Roman concepts such as purgatory,
00:15:58.480 --> 00:16:01.440
penance and the veneration of the saints. Another
00:16:01.440 --> 00:16:04.179
major casualty was a concept represented by the
00:16:04.179 --> 00:16:07.600
truly wonderful word transubstantiation. This
00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:09.620
was the Roman church belief that the ceremonial
00:16:09.620 --> 00:16:12.259
bread and wine of communion was the actual flesh
00:16:12.259 --> 00:16:14.580
and blood of Jesus, meaning that Christ's body
00:16:14.580 --> 00:16:17.139
and blood were, for believers, physically present
00:16:17.139 --> 00:16:22.190
and eaten during the ceremony. Cramner and his
00:16:22.190 --> 00:16:25.049
Protestant reformer allies had a much less permissive
00:16:25.049 --> 00:16:28.730
approach to sacraments than the Romans. They
00:16:28.730 --> 00:16:31.309
held that only baptism and something called the
00:16:31.309 --> 00:16:34.769
Eucharist would remain as sacraments. Before
00:16:34.769 --> 00:16:38.230
having read about this, to understand just how
00:16:38.230 --> 00:16:40.509
willing Angela Tilby was to deceive the audience
00:16:40.509 --> 00:16:43.889
of Radio 4, I had little idea of what a sacrament
00:16:43.889 --> 00:16:46.429
was. I now have a little more and rather wish
00:16:46.429 --> 00:16:49.570
I didn't. There are much better things. with
00:16:49.570 --> 00:16:52.669
which to fill a mind. In any event, the Roman
00:16:52.669 --> 00:16:55.590
Church has seven sacraments. This revision down
00:16:55.590 --> 00:16:59.389
to two by Cramner was quite a hefty cut. His
00:16:59.389 --> 00:17:02.370
prayer book saw to it that marriage was demoted
00:17:02.370 --> 00:17:06.150
from this lofty holiness. Now, contrary to Tilby's
00:17:06.150 --> 00:17:08.890
intimation, the prayer book, it could be argued,
00:17:09.029 --> 00:17:12.730
objectively reduced the holiness of the marriage
00:17:12.730 --> 00:17:15.950
ceremony. Never mind her confusion over church
00:17:15.950 --> 00:17:19.740
porches. For this fall from sacramental grace,
00:17:19.799 --> 00:17:22.019
though, marriage was given something of a parachute.
00:17:22.680 --> 00:17:24.660
Cranmer may not have believed in marriage as
00:17:24.660 --> 00:17:27.720
a sacrament, but he did believe that it was ordained
00:17:27.720 --> 00:17:30.160
by God and that it constituted something called
00:17:30.160 --> 00:17:33.319
a holy estate. So having whipped off the stripes
00:17:33.319 --> 00:17:35.900
of sacrament, the Archbishop felt obliged to
00:17:35.900 --> 00:17:38.319
make up the difference, and he did this with
00:17:38.319 --> 00:17:41.670
a new vow. Technically it was an addition to
00:17:41.670 --> 00:17:44.910
one of the existing five vows. But this addition
00:17:44.910 --> 00:17:48.109
obliged the couple getting married to live together
00:17:48.109 --> 00:17:51.789
after God's ordinance in the holiest state of
00:17:51.789 --> 00:17:55.170
matrimony. So let's focus for a second on these
00:17:55.170 --> 00:17:58.269
vows. The original vows of Rome and Salisbury
00:17:58.269 --> 00:18:00.650
can be separated into five sections. You could
00:18:00.650 --> 00:18:04.269
broadly say there were five vows. Important to
00:18:04.269 --> 00:18:07.339
note there were other manuals. and many variations
00:18:07.339 --> 00:18:11.079
in the Latin word choice and translation. Broadly
00:18:11.079 --> 00:18:13.640
though, there was consensus, and the five sections
00:18:13.640 --> 00:18:16.480
of the Latin vowels were in order. At number
00:18:16.480 --> 00:18:20.220
one, consent. Number two, cherishment. Number
00:18:20.220 --> 00:18:23.900
three, constancy. Number four, commitment. And
00:18:23.900 --> 00:18:27.240
number five, ceaselessness. Now on our website,
00:18:27.500 --> 00:18:30.460
secondthoughtfortheday .com, the Latin is reproduced
00:18:30.460 --> 00:18:32.559
next to each of the vowels that we're just going
00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:35.789
to... run through. So first consent, do you wish
00:18:35.789 --> 00:18:38.329
to have this man stroke woman as your groom stroke
00:18:38.329 --> 00:18:41.390
bride? Next came cherishment. The cherishment
00:18:41.390 --> 00:18:45.150
vow features a notorious difference between that
00:18:45.150 --> 00:18:47.930
for the bride and that for the groom. Instead
00:18:47.930 --> 00:18:50.109
of vowing to love, honour, hold and protect,
00:18:50.529 --> 00:18:53.210
the bride was saddled with having to obey, serve,
00:18:53.410 --> 00:18:57.769
love, honour and protect. It's also worth noting
00:18:57.769 --> 00:19:02.009
the love in this cherishment section of the vows.
00:19:02.650 --> 00:19:06.630
The Latin word used here was diligere, which
00:19:06.630 --> 00:19:08.970
I've almost certainly not pronounced correctly.
00:19:10.009 --> 00:19:12.369
But it means much more than having affection,
00:19:12.589 --> 00:19:14.769
and it's not Christian love, it's not erotic
00:19:14.769 --> 00:19:18.509
love. Of particular relevance, it meant an expression
00:19:18.509 --> 00:19:21.569
of love demonstrated by having committed to a
00:19:21.569 --> 00:19:24.430
choice. The object of your affection is dignified
00:19:24.430 --> 00:19:28.990
by your choice to love it. The word is also often
00:19:28.990 --> 00:19:33.359
translated as esteem. and worship, alongside
00:19:33.359 --> 00:19:36.519
cherish and various others. We then have the
00:19:36.519 --> 00:19:40.559
constancy vow, familiar to everyone, in sickness
00:19:40.559 --> 00:19:43.799
and in health. The commitment section had two
00:19:43.799 --> 00:19:47.079
parts, and this is important because this is
00:19:47.079 --> 00:19:49.099
one of the sections that Tilby claims was brand
00:19:49.099 --> 00:19:52.279
new in that little sermon she mentioned. And
00:19:52.279 --> 00:19:54.660
it's the bit that demands that the bride and
00:19:54.660 --> 00:19:57.579
the groom each be to each other as they ought
00:19:57.579 --> 00:20:01.029
to be. And then the second was the familiar forsaking
00:20:01.029 --> 00:20:05.690
of all others. In fairness, Cranmer did expand
00:20:05.690 --> 00:20:08.109
a little with a couple of explanations of what
00:20:08.109 --> 00:20:11.430
being to the other what you ought to be involved,
00:20:11.910 --> 00:20:14.670
the way he put it was for mutual society help
00:20:14.670 --> 00:20:18.470
and comfort. I guess that might be necessary
00:20:18.470 --> 00:20:21.650
if the bride and groom weren't aware of how they
00:20:21.650 --> 00:20:24.250
ought to behave towards one another in a marriage.
00:20:25.109 --> 00:20:28.539
And then finally we have ceaselessness. and stay
00:20:28.539 --> 00:20:30.700
with him or her for as long as you both shall
00:20:30.700 --> 00:20:35.799
live. Now, the prayer book added to these vows.
00:20:35.980 --> 00:20:38.480
The new bit joined the consent vow right at the
00:20:38.480 --> 00:20:42.559
top, which became, using the 1549 wording, Wilt
00:20:42.559 --> 00:20:44.859
thou have this man to be thy wedded husband,
00:20:44.940 --> 00:20:47.140
to live together after God's ordinance in the
00:20:47.140 --> 00:20:51.859
holy estate of matrimony? Now, there was no explanation
00:20:51.859 --> 00:20:55.950
in the Sarum rite. of the wedding service, on
00:20:55.950 --> 00:20:57.849
why God ordained marriage, although you could
00:20:57.849 --> 00:20:59.890
reasonably infer from Tilby's account that there
00:20:59.890 --> 00:21:02.950
was, but it wasn't as though there was no understanding
00:21:02.950 --> 00:21:05.029
among priests and their congregations of the
00:21:05.029 --> 00:21:07.769
reasons that God did ordain marriage. It's simply
00:21:07.769 --> 00:21:09.869
that this understanding didn't get a mandatory
00:21:09.869 --> 00:21:13.809
plug in the order of service. But since Cramner
00:21:13.809 --> 00:21:17.549
has made this ordination an addition to an actual
00:21:17.549 --> 00:21:20.329
vow, you can understand his motivation to sex
00:21:20.329 --> 00:21:23.490
up the order. with some well -placed explanatory
00:21:23.490 --> 00:21:28.450
notes. And it was the third reason included in
00:21:28.450 --> 00:21:32.549
the explanatory notes of God's ordination in
00:21:32.549 --> 00:21:34.769
the new prayer book that Tilby claimed was quite
00:21:34.769 --> 00:21:37.869
new. And this is how it appears in the 1549 original.
00:21:38.609 --> 00:21:41.309
Thirdly, for the mutual society, help and comfort
00:21:41.309 --> 00:21:44.109
that the one ought to have of the other, both
00:21:44.109 --> 00:21:47.269
in prosperity and adversity, into the holiest
00:21:47.269 --> 00:21:49.950
state these two persons present come now to be
00:21:49.950 --> 00:21:54.119
joined. The mutual society, mutual help and mutual
00:21:54.119 --> 00:21:56.519
comfort that the one ought to have of the other
00:21:56.519 --> 00:21:59.720
simply spells out what is already in the commitment
00:21:59.720 --> 00:22:02.640
section of the Sarum Rite vows. As a bride ought
00:22:02.640 --> 00:22:05.279
to be to her groom and as a groom ought to be
00:22:05.279 --> 00:22:08.599
to his bride. Then we have a pre -run of the
00:22:08.599 --> 00:22:11.180
constancy section of the Sarum Rite vow but health
00:22:11.180 --> 00:22:13.319
becomes prosperity and sickness becomes adversity.
00:22:13.880 --> 00:22:17.319
The genuinely new section is into the holiest
00:22:17.319 --> 00:22:19.740
state these two people now come to be joined.
00:22:20.430 --> 00:22:23.529
Tilby fails to include this new bit in her commentary
00:22:23.529 --> 00:22:26.930
about new bits, while also including old bits
00:22:26.930 --> 00:22:30.569
and claiming them to be new. That's quite a feat.
00:22:30.710 --> 00:22:33.269
It does provide an excellent illustration of
00:22:33.269 --> 00:22:35.789
how quickly the truth can suffer when confronted
00:22:35.789 --> 00:22:38.890
with a scarcity of curiosity and an abundance
00:22:38.890 --> 00:22:43.190
of faith. The presenters, particularly the Christian
00:22:43.190 --> 00:22:46.049
presenters of Thought for the Day, quite frequently
00:22:46.049 --> 00:22:50.619
mention truth and its seeking, yet... they demonstrate
00:22:50.619 --> 00:22:54.119
repeatedly a lack of curiosity for the truth
00:22:54.119 --> 00:22:56.880
and an abundance of faith that gets in the way
00:22:56.880 --> 00:23:00.079
of them exploring it. For now, back to Angela
00:23:00.079 --> 00:23:05.460
and her comments on love and cherish. Klanmer
00:23:05.460 --> 00:23:08.819
also added the words to love and to cherish to
00:23:08.819 --> 00:23:12.480
the marriage vows. Love had long been in the
00:23:12.480 --> 00:23:16.329
vows. Cherish, esteem, worship also feature in
00:23:16.329 --> 00:23:18.809
various translations of the various Latin church
00:23:18.809 --> 00:23:22.130
manuals. It wasn't that Cramner added love and
00:23:22.130 --> 00:23:25.109
cherish. What Cramner did was remove opportunity
00:23:25.109 --> 00:23:28.109
for interpretation by the priest that inevitably
00:23:28.109 --> 00:23:31.349
accompanied extemporaneous translation of the
00:23:31.349 --> 00:23:34.230
Latin into English. It was Cramner's view that
00:23:34.230 --> 00:23:37.349
love and cherish was appropriate as the translation
00:23:37.349 --> 00:23:40.250
to be in the first formal English order of the
00:23:40.250 --> 00:23:43.039
marriage service. he most certainly wasn't adding
00:23:43.039 --> 00:23:47.599
anything different. In Tilby's defence, the Wikipedia
00:23:47.599 --> 00:23:50.160
page on the Book of Common Prayer does say in
00:23:50.160 --> 00:23:52.279
the final sentence of its section about marriage,
00:23:52.599 --> 00:23:55.660
Cranmer added the words to love and cherish.
00:23:55.940 --> 00:23:58.460
This seems like an excellent advertisement for
00:23:58.460 --> 00:24:01.779
not restricting your research exclusively to
00:24:01.779 --> 00:24:04.819
Wikipedia. The claim that Cranmer added love
00:24:04.819 --> 00:24:07.380
and cherish to the wedding vows is at best an
00:24:07.380 --> 00:24:11.619
oversimplification, and at worst, False, concealing
00:24:11.619 --> 00:24:15.259
the truth behind those changes. Finally, we have
00:24:15.259 --> 00:24:17.599
the comments on the happy marriage of Cranmer
00:24:17.599 --> 00:24:20.220
and how this influenced his approach to the revised
00:24:20.220 --> 00:24:23.819
service in his prayer book. The historian Tilby
00:24:23.819 --> 00:24:27.880
cites Mr McCulloch did not pass judgment on the
00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:30.640
happiness of Cranmer's marriages. Cramner had
00:24:30.640 --> 00:24:33.480
two wives, perhaps making him uniquely qualified
00:24:33.480 --> 00:24:36.059
as a bishop of his epoch for the revising of
00:24:36.059 --> 00:24:38.640
wedding services. His marriage experience might
00:24:38.640 --> 00:24:41.720
best though be described as chequered. Dates
00:24:41.720 --> 00:24:43.480
and details are sketchy, but it seems likely
00:24:43.480 --> 00:24:46.019
his first wife died in childbirth within three
00:24:46.019 --> 00:24:48.380
years of the two of them having met. There is
00:24:48.380 --> 00:24:50.900
no evidence of Cramner ever having commented
00:24:50.900 --> 00:24:53.039
or written about this experience, which was no
00:24:53.039 --> 00:24:56.380
doubt painful for him. Although this takes nothing
00:24:56.380 --> 00:24:58.980
away from the esteem Cramner may or may not have
00:24:58.980 --> 00:25:02.099
held, for this marriage. His second marriage
00:25:02.099 --> 00:25:05.299
was quite different and took place almost entirely
00:25:05.299 --> 00:25:08.819
in secret, not just the wedding, the whole marriage,
00:25:09.059 --> 00:25:12.220
and featured long periods of separation. This
00:25:12.220 --> 00:25:14.880
was the result of him having ignored his vows
00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:18.299
of clerical celibacy, so perhaps not the ideal
00:25:18.299 --> 00:25:22.079
arbiter of vows. Then he was promoted to Archbishop,
00:25:22.079 --> 00:25:24.779
which forced him to return to England from continental
00:25:24.779 --> 00:25:28.099
Europe. Keeping his wife and daughter secret
00:25:28.099 --> 00:25:30.960
was, in the words of McCulloch, astonishing.
00:25:32.039 --> 00:25:34.539
Cramner clearly valued marriage. It was certainly
00:25:34.539 --> 00:25:38.460
difficult to keep him from doing it. But there
00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:41.339
is no record of him ever having commented on
00:25:41.339 --> 00:25:43.700
the happiness or otherwise of these marriages.
00:25:44.819 --> 00:25:48.519
It seems likely that his second marriage did
00:25:48.519 --> 00:25:50.960
inform how he approached his tweaks to the wedding
00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:54.099
ceremony when preparing a new English manual
00:25:54.099 --> 00:25:58.519
for all churches in England. So in summary, following
00:25:58.519 --> 00:26:01.099
our fact check to ensure we'd not been too harsh
00:26:01.099 --> 00:26:03.799
on Tilby, we instead found that she'd made many
00:26:03.799 --> 00:26:06.720
more errors than we'd originally found. She'd
00:26:06.720 --> 00:26:08.859
used a straw man argument to produce an invented
00:26:08.859 --> 00:26:11.160
contrast between the theology of marriages before
00:26:11.160 --> 00:26:13.720
and after the Middle Ages. She intimated that
00:26:13.720 --> 00:26:16.099
pre -prayer book marriage was less holy, which
00:26:16.099 --> 00:26:19.140
is a direct inversion of the truth. She suggested
00:26:19.140 --> 00:26:21.559
that pre -Cranmer marriage was merely contractual
00:26:21.559 --> 00:26:23.779
lust control. when, as we pointed out in our
00:26:23.779 --> 00:26:26.299
original broadcast on this, the Sarumrite marriage
00:26:26.299 --> 00:26:29.980
had long been regarded as a divine act. What
00:26:29.980 --> 00:26:31.980
we hadn't realised at the time was that marriage
00:26:31.980 --> 00:26:35.220
before Cranmer had been a holy sacrament. Thomas
00:26:35.220 --> 00:26:38.940
effectively demoted its holiness. Tilby then
00:26:38.940 --> 00:26:41.579
falsely claimed that the third reason for God
00:26:41.579 --> 00:26:44.000
-ordination of marriage in the service sermon
00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:47.099
was completely new, when it had in fact been
00:26:47.099 --> 00:26:49.680
in the service for hundreds of years. And she
00:26:49.680 --> 00:26:52.240
finished off. by misrepresenting both a historian
00:26:52.240 --> 00:26:55.720
and the history of love and cherish in marriage
00:26:55.720 --> 00:27:00.059
vows. Here's how we concluded the original review
00:27:00.059 --> 00:27:04.640
of Tilby's broadcast. What a wasted opportunity
00:27:04.640 --> 00:27:07.819
and a pointless effort. And that's before we
00:27:07.819 --> 00:27:13.160
consider the barbs. Just rubbish. Rubbish indeed.
00:27:13.599 --> 00:27:18.279
Tilby is deceitful. She manipulates her sources.
00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:25.039
Dozens of false claims. This truly is an appalling
00:27:25.039 --> 00:27:28.519
broadcast. And the more we look at it, the worse
00:27:28.519 --> 00:27:33.039
it becomes. Thank you for listening. If you'd
00:27:33.039 --> 00:27:35.460
like to learn more about what we do and why,
00:27:35.640 --> 00:27:38.220
or to read show notes, find transcripts, or listen
00:27:38.220 --> 00:27:40.180
to any of the other podcasts that we've not yet
00:27:40.180 --> 00:27:41.140
put out on the main feed,
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:02.680
Welcome to the Second Thought for the Day podcast.
00:00:03.240 --> 00:00:06.040
We fill that rather niche spot for anyone who
00:00:06.040 --> 00:00:08.720
has ever been even mildly irritated by Thought
00:00:08.720 --> 00:00:11.740
for the Day on Radio 4 and wondered why no one
00:00:11.740 --> 00:00:14.119
was doing anything about it or even holding them
00:00:14.119 --> 00:00:18.859
to account. This is a throwback episode. We revisit
00:00:18.859 --> 00:00:22.120
an earlier review. We knew when we started that
00:00:22.120 --> 00:00:24.160
we'd likely make the odd mistake and in the spirit
00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:25.920
of keeping an open mind we went back through
00:00:25.920 --> 00:00:28.579
the feedback we had to see what leads there were.
00:00:28.859 --> 00:00:32.939
for further consideration. We found one. The
00:00:32.939 --> 00:00:36.439
first one. The first thought for the day that
00:00:36.439 --> 00:00:40.780
we reviewed was presented by Angela Tilby. Tilby
00:00:40.780 --> 00:00:44.979
is a retired Anglican priest in Oxford. There
00:00:44.979 --> 00:00:47.579
was much wrong with her contribution that day,
00:00:47.659 --> 00:00:50.880
the 10th of April. There was though a niggling
00:00:50.880 --> 00:00:53.539
doubt at second thought, shared by one or two
00:00:53.539 --> 00:00:55.420
of those who'd been kind enough to provide feedback,
00:00:55.679 --> 00:00:58.380
that we'd perhaps been a touch harsh in our...
00:00:58.490 --> 00:01:01.009
criticism of Angela's account of how theology
00:01:01.009 --> 00:01:03.250
of marriage was brought out of the dark ages
00:01:03.250 --> 00:01:06.170
by an English archbishop. Now let's be clear,
00:01:06.349 --> 00:01:09.310
it wasn't. This archbishop made several important
00:01:09.310 --> 00:01:11.769
changes, but the vows and the theology behind
00:01:11.769 --> 00:01:14.810
them were for the most part unchanged. At least
00:01:14.810 --> 00:01:16.650
they were in all the ways that are relevant to
00:01:16.650 --> 00:01:19.209
what Tilby said. The doubt we had centred on
00:01:19.209 --> 00:01:21.290
whether or not we'd taken too general an approach
00:01:21.290 --> 00:01:24.129
to dismissing Angela Tilby's claim that Cramner
00:01:24.129 --> 00:01:26.689
had revolutionised the theory of marriage, when
00:01:26.689 --> 00:01:29.730
perhaps Tilby was just making a point more focused
00:01:29.730 --> 00:01:33.329
on the words of the ceremony. Here's what we
00:01:33.329 --> 00:01:37.510
said at the time. We were led to believe that
00:01:37.510 --> 00:01:40.879
medieval clerics in England saw marriage as somewhat
00:01:40.879 --> 00:01:43.079
removed from the church and little more than
00:01:43.079 --> 00:01:46.040
a contractual means of reigning in fornication
00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:49.900
and enforcing social order. We're then invited
00:01:49.900 --> 00:01:53.319
to contrast this dark spell of matrimonial theology
00:01:53.319 --> 00:01:57.099
with the enlightenment that accompanied the first
00:01:57.099 --> 00:02:01.659
English prayer book of 1549. The prevailing requisites
00:02:01.659 --> 00:02:04.359
of fornication, abatement and societal control
00:02:05.180 --> 00:02:06.959
were there but now accompanied for the first
00:02:06.959 --> 00:02:09.280
time by a suggestion that those getting married
00:02:09.280 --> 00:02:14.020
should love and cherish each other. Quite frankly,
00:02:14.199 --> 00:02:19.919
rubbish. I'm not an expert, but there's a lot
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:22.159
of straightforward and verifiable information
00:02:22.159 --> 00:02:24.560
out there for anyone with 20 minutes to spare
00:02:24.560 --> 00:02:27.340
and a passing familiarity with the internet.
00:02:27.759 --> 00:02:30.639
For the vast majority of Christian history before
00:02:30.639 --> 00:02:34.150
1549 in England, direction for the church was
00:02:34.150 --> 00:02:38.909
provided exclusively by Rome, and marriage had
00:02:38.909 --> 00:02:41.889
long been considered by the Roman church to be
00:02:41.889 --> 00:02:45.650
an act of divine significance, at least since
00:02:45.650 --> 00:02:47.870
a thing called the Fourth Lateran Council of
00:02:47.870 --> 00:02:53.069
1215. Since then, marriage was understood to
00:02:53.069 --> 00:02:56.349
be a reflection of the union between the church
00:02:56.349 --> 00:03:01.150
and Christ, of some importance, love and cherishment,
00:03:01.819 --> 00:03:04.879
had been somewhat obviously front and centre
00:03:04.879 --> 00:03:08.620
in marriage since long, long before the scribblings
00:03:08.620 --> 00:03:12.599
of an English archbishop in 1549 were turned
00:03:12.599 --> 00:03:17.759
into a prayer book. So we set about fact -checking
00:03:17.759 --> 00:03:22.599
her and us and what we discovered was astonishing.
00:03:23.419 --> 00:03:27.099
Tilby had been much worse than we'd appreciated
00:03:27.099 --> 00:03:29.699
at the time. It was clear that our criticism
00:03:29.699 --> 00:03:32.620
of her claims about Cranmer were not only justified,
00:03:32.860 --> 00:03:37.060
but spectacularly incomplete. That said, our
00:03:37.060 --> 00:03:39.020
comments on Tilby's claim about the use of love
00:03:39.020 --> 00:03:42.280
and cherish was slightly off. We'd conflated
00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:45.139
the content of the vows with the content of Cranmer's
00:03:45.139 --> 00:03:47.400
little sermon on why marriage was ordained by
00:03:47.400 --> 00:03:50.840
God. In our defence, Tilby started that, but
00:03:50.840 --> 00:03:52.879
we remain thankful this error made no material
00:03:52.879 --> 00:03:55.280
difference. Everything else we criticised was
00:03:55.280 --> 00:03:59.879
bang on. On to those that we missed. These were
00:03:59.879 --> 00:04:02.259
all in a relatively short section on how Tilby
00:04:02.259 --> 00:04:04.060
described the changes to the marriage ceremony
00:04:04.060 --> 00:04:07.719
in England in the 1500s. In the theology of the
00:04:07.719 --> 00:04:10.159
Middle Ages, marriage was a kind of contract,
00:04:10.419 --> 00:04:13.300
a way of ordering society and holding lust in
00:04:13.300 --> 00:04:17.920
check. It was. It still is. As far as the Church
00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:20.639
is concerned, nothing here has changed. Tilby's
00:04:20.639 --> 00:04:24.480
implication that it has is false. Marriages took
00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:27.220
place in the church porch, as if they were half
00:04:27.220 --> 00:04:31.420
-worldly and pragmatic, half -holy. Vows were
00:04:31.420 --> 00:04:34.740
indeed exchanged in the porch, but to suggest
00:04:34.740 --> 00:04:38.439
this diluted their holiness is groundless speculation.
00:04:38.500 --> 00:04:42.540
Indeed, Tilby, on this point, could hardly be
00:04:42.540 --> 00:04:45.459
more wrong. In the First English Prayer Book
00:04:45.459 --> 00:04:49.379
of 1549, a more positive view was stated. No,
00:04:49.439 --> 00:04:53.139
it was not. Tilby here makes a veiled false claim
00:04:53.139 --> 00:04:56.600
that there was something negative about the porch
00:04:56.600 --> 00:05:00.120
vow pre -Cranmer marriage service. The ceremony
00:05:00.120 --> 00:05:02.899
was brought into the body of the church. It was,
00:05:03.100 --> 00:05:05.519
but not because Cranmer thought this would make
00:05:05.519 --> 00:05:08.160
weddings more holy. And was now accompanied by
00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:11.480
a compulsory little sermon on why God had ordained
00:05:11.480 --> 00:05:14.759
marriage. Cramner's prayer book made a significant
00:05:14.759 --> 00:05:18.439
addition to one of the wedding vows on the God
00:05:18.439 --> 00:05:21.819
-ordained estate of holy matrimony, so some sort
00:05:21.819 --> 00:05:24.339
of exposition in the service itself was likely
00:05:24.339 --> 00:05:27.800
felt necessary. Three reasons were given. First,
00:05:27.879 --> 00:05:30.240
to provide for the procreation of children and
00:05:30.240 --> 00:05:32.180
to ensure they were brought up in the fear of
00:05:32.180 --> 00:05:35.019
the Lord. Second, for the avoidance of the sin
00:05:35.019 --> 00:05:38.980
of fornication, sex outside marriage. So far,
00:05:38.980 --> 00:05:41.939
so good. But then Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop
00:05:41.939 --> 00:05:44.199
of Canterbury who drafted the new service, added
00:05:44.199 --> 00:05:47.759
something quite new. Marriage was instituted
00:05:47.759 --> 00:05:50.980
for the mutual society, help and comfort that
00:05:50.980 --> 00:05:54.079
the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity
00:05:54.079 --> 00:05:58.660
and adversity. Except this was not new. It had
00:05:58.660 --> 00:06:02.160
been in the vows themselves for centuries. The
00:06:02.160 --> 00:06:06.240
new bit from Cranmer came next. But inexplicably,
00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:10.560
Tilby... left it out. She went straight on to
00:06:10.560 --> 00:06:14.339
be wrong about something else. Cranmer also added
00:06:14.339 --> 00:06:17.439
the words to love and to cherish to the marriage
00:06:17.439 --> 00:06:21.459
vows. Technically, it could be argued, this is
00:06:21.459 --> 00:06:24.000
correct but to do so would obscure the truth
00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:26.240
of the changes Cranmer made. Love and cherish
00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:28.379
were very much part of the wedding rite long
00:06:28.379 --> 00:06:32.819
before 1549. The historian Dermot McCulloch suggests
00:06:32.819 --> 00:06:35.500
that we owe these additions to Cranmer's own
00:06:35.500 --> 00:06:40.000
happy experience of marriage. No. While the experience
00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:43.199
of Cranmer's two marriages almost certainly informed
00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:45.160
his approach to the revision of this service,
00:06:45.439 --> 00:06:49.279
the statement from Tilby is misleading. Apparently,
00:06:49.319 --> 00:06:53.459
deliberately so. It is true to say that it's
00:06:53.459 --> 00:06:56.560
possible to infer a suggestion from McCulloch
00:06:56.560 --> 00:06:59.160
on what Cranmer drew from his own experience
00:06:59.160 --> 00:07:02.879
of marriage. It is not true to say that McCulloch
00:07:02.879 --> 00:07:07.139
made this suggestion. We never imagined that
00:07:07.139 --> 00:07:10.199
we'd have to read a biography of a dead bishop
00:07:10.199 --> 00:07:13.600
to fact -check a retired priest. Life is full
00:07:13.600 --> 00:07:16.839
of surprises. It is, though, an excellent book.
00:07:17.139 --> 00:07:20.480
The Canon Tilby can barely type without unjustifiable
00:07:20.480 --> 00:07:23.680
speculation and blatant falsehoods filling the
00:07:23.680 --> 00:07:27.730
pages. In fewer than 200 words, Tilby manages
00:07:27.730 --> 00:07:31.569
to stuff a calvacade of errors that we didn't
00:07:31.569 --> 00:07:34.629
spot the first time around. Let's take each in
00:07:34.629 --> 00:07:39.269
turn. Tilby's presentation of a 1549 Enlightenment
00:07:39.269 --> 00:07:42.709
in matrimonial theology is a simple strawman
00:07:42.709 --> 00:07:45.829
fallacy. The contrast that she describes between
00:07:45.829 --> 00:07:47.810
the Middle Ages and what came later does not
00:07:47.810 --> 00:07:51.550
exist, at least not as Tilby presents it. Attacking
00:07:51.550 --> 00:07:53.329
one side or other of an invented comparison,
00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:57.699
is cowardly and dishonest. We should, though,
00:07:57.800 --> 00:08:01.480
pause for a second on straw man. From experience,
00:08:01.699 --> 00:08:03.600
it's one of the least well understood of the
00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:06.800
common logical fallacies. Oddly, humans, at least
00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:09.319
several large subsets of humans, appear to have
00:08:09.319 --> 00:08:11.540
a natural ability to use a straw man fallacy
00:08:11.540 --> 00:08:14.740
to their advantage, despite no knowledge of what
00:08:14.740 --> 00:08:18.220
it is. Rather than tackle the subject of a discussion,
00:08:18.519 --> 00:08:22.170
someone using a straw man will project an invented
00:08:22.170 --> 00:08:25.189
alternative discussion on the other person as
00:08:25.189 --> 00:08:27.709
though they'd said it and then attack the projection
00:08:27.709 --> 00:08:31.490
instead. They stand up and then they knock down
00:08:31.490 --> 00:08:35.029
the straw man, leaving the relevant subject well
00:08:35.029 --> 00:08:38.769
alone. For example, someone says, blue is cool.
00:08:39.389 --> 00:08:41.909
And the person they're talking to says, why do
00:08:41.909 --> 00:08:46.009
you hate red? The subject here established by
00:08:46.009 --> 00:08:49.000
the first person is blue and its alleged coolness.
00:08:49.179 --> 00:08:51.659
But instead of engaging with that subject, the
00:08:51.659 --> 00:08:54.080
respondent creates a fake subject, the straw
00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:56.519
man, which is the hatred of red, which is then
00:08:56.519 --> 00:08:59.059
used to make an irrelevant and groundless allegation
00:08:59.059 --> 00:09:02.899
about the first person. Now clearly, no one's
00:09:02.899 --> 00:09:05.120
actually arguing about red and blue. More common
00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:08.360
straw man arguments are similar to these examples.
00:09:09.220 --> 00:09:12.480
Politician 1. We have a problem that can only
00:09:12.480 --> 00:09:14.879
be solved by giving our schools more resources
00:09:14.879 --> 00:09:18.700
for art and for music. Politician 2. This is
00:09:18.700 --> 00:09:21.379
outrageous. My opponent wants to undermine our
00:09:21.379 --> 00:09:25.740
schools by defunding maths and science. Politician
00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:29.279
A. We must cut carbon emissions to prevent a
00:09:29.279 --> 00:09:32.679
climate catastrophe. Politician B. There is no
00:09:32.679 --> 00:09:35.179
way our economy can support the immediate banning
00:09:35.179 --> 00:09:38.519
of petrol and diesel cars. Using a straw man
00:09:38.519 --> 00:09:42.620
argument is an inherently dishonest act. There
00:09:42.620 --> 00:09:45.779
is an implicit acknowledgement. in every example
00:09:45.779 --> 00:09:48.139
that the user does not have the arguments or
00:09:48.139 --> 00:09:51.059
perhaps the skill to tackle the actual subject
00:09:51.059 --> 00:09:53.440
so rather than capitulate or acknowledge the
00:09:53.440 --> 00:09:55.960
merits of the other side they frustrate understanding
00:09:55.960 --> 00:09:59.240
they derail the debate and they start a battle
00:09:59.240 --> 00:10:02.740
against reason another form uses the straw man
00:10:02.740 --> 00:10:05.840
to advance a fallacious position for example
00:10:06.549 --> 00:10:08.730
We've known for decades that camembert causes
00:10:08.730 --> 00:10:11.090
heart disease. It's important to note that Edam
00:10:11.090 --> 00:10:14.330
was not involved in any of those studies of camembert
00:10:14.330 --> 00:10:16.769
and it has not been implicated as a hair loss
00:10:16.769 --> 00:10:20.429
cheese. Perhaps now we can live as hairy Edam
00:10:20.429 --> 00:10:22.529
cheese eaters in the comfort of this knowledge.
00:10:23.579 --> 00:10:25.799
Presumably, a representative of the Dutch dairy
00:10:25.799 --> 00:10:27.980
industry thinks that she can sway the camembert
00:10:27.980 --> 00:10:30.919
eaters to try Edam, so she opens with a plausible
00:10:30.919 --> 00:10:33.639
but false assertion, and then she leans on the
00:10:33.639 --> 00:10:36.580
consequences of this falsehood while adding others
00:10:36.580 --> 00:10:41.679
to promote a different cheese. This, if you'll
00:10:41.679 --> 00:10:45.139
forgive the cheese, is precisely what Tilby does.
00:10:45.399 --> 00:10:48.299
Her straw man is the dark theology of the Middle
00:10:48.299 --> 00:10:51.139
Ages, which she contrasts with a positive change
00:10:51.139 --> 00:10:53.899
brought about by a prayer book. In fairness,
00:10:54.059 --> 00:10:57.600
this change did somewhat neatly coincide with
00:10:57.600 --> 00:11:00.460
the end of the Middle Ages, as it's usually understood,
00:11:00.639 --> 00:11:03.139
but this is a correlation, not a causation, and
00:11:03.139 --> 00:11:05.220
more pertinently, the contrast Tilby is claiming
00:11:05.220 --> 00:11:09.659
simply doesn't exist. It is an invention to promote
00:11:09.659 --> 00:11:13.200
Archbishop Cramner, his prayer book, and an awful
00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:16.620
lot of other Anglican stuff. Tilby casts the
00:11:16.620 --> 00:11:20.379
Middle Ages as the before and as inferior. Specifically,
00:11:20.379 --> 00:11:22.480
it's the theology of the Middle Ages on which
00:11:22.480 --> 00:11:26.500
Tilby throws shade. The contrast, if there is
00:11:26.500 --> 00:11:29.059
one, is not between the theology of the Middle
00:11:29.059 --> 00:11:31.340
Ages and what came from Cramner. The contrast
00:11:31.340 --> 00:11:33.639
is between the established doctrine of the Church
00:11:33.639 --> 00:11:36.399
of Rome and the Reformation ideas that were bubbling
00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:39.379
across Northern Europe. Tilby is simply slinging
00:11:39.379 --> 00:11:42.559
mud at Catholicism, notably without any justification.
00:11:43.399 --> 00:11:46.200
Now, in England, these Reformation ideas were
00:11:46.200 --> 00:11:50.419
given a significant... constitutional lift when
00:11:50.419 --> 00:11:52.980
the Pope told Henry VIII that his marriage to
00:11:52.980 --> 00:11:55.379
Catherine of Aragon would not be annulled. Now
00:11:55.379 --> 00:11:58.779
Henry was in need of an heir and for that he
00:11:58.779 --> 00:12:02.559
was in need of a wife, a new wife and hence a
00:12:02.559 --> 00:12:05.740
new church, one that would not be subject to
00:12:05.740 --> 00:12:08.700
the whims of the Pope. Cranmer, the reformer,
00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:11.320
was hired as Archbishop and this new Archbishop
00:12:11.320 --> 00:12:16.580
clearly saw his chance and took it. Back to Angela.
00:12:16.759 --> 00:12:19.860
She suggested that pre -Reformation marriage
00:12:19.860 --> 00:12:23.139
was inferior, merely a contract to order society
00:12:23.139 --> 00:12:26.299
and to keep lust in check. Apparently, marriages
00:12:26.299 --> 00:12:29.360
were also then insufficiently godly. Now this
00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:31.519
godliness deficit is something that Angela quite
00:12:31.519 --> 00:12:34.720
incorrectly inferred from pre -Reformation vows
00:12:34.720 --> 00:12:37.700
being exchanged at the church door before the
00:12:37.700 --> 00:12:40.960
ceremony moved inside. This happened for two
00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:43.730
reasons. One practical. and one symbolic. The
00:12:43.730 --> 00:12:46.190
practical reason was so that the exchanging of
00:12:46.190 --> 00:12:49.789
the vows was public. Those outside and inside
00:12:49.789 --> 00:12:51.490
the church would hear the vows and all would
00:12:51.490 --> 00:12:54.070
have an opportunity before the making of those
00:12:54.070 --> 00:12:57.110
vows to raise an impediment, and thus making
00:12:57.110 --> 00:12:59.090
themselves enormously popular with the bride
00:12:59.090 --> 00:13:01.049
and the groom and whomever was paying for the
00:13:01.049 --> 00:13:04.870
reception. It had nothing to do with Angela Tilby's
00:13:04.870 --> 00:13:07.429
muddled musings on the half -holiness of medieval
00:13:07.429 --> 00:13:10.789
marriages and inappropriate use of the word pragmatic.
00:13:12.330 --> 00:13:15.610
to the symbolic now somewhat obviously the church
00:13:15.610 --> 00:13:18.549
doors symbolize the threshold between the secular
00:13:18.549 --> 00:13:22.429
and the sacred once the vows were made the couple
00:13:22.429 --> 00:13:25.210
would cross the threshold into the sacred space
00:13:25.210 --> 00:13:28.149
of the church from the secular exterior while
00:13:28.149 --> 00:13:30.750
also entering the holy sacrament of marriage
00:13:30.750 --> 00:13:34.289
thresholds appear elsewhere in marriage traditions
00:13:34.289 --> 00:13:38.450
these though hinge on folklore that thresholds
00:13:38.450 --> 00:13:41.639
were inhabited by evil spirits Weirder still,
00:13:41.860 --> 00:13:45.000
that the soles of the feet of women were somehow
00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:48.279
vulnerable to these spirits. Hence the groom
00:13:48.279 --> 00:13:50.379
would carry the bride over the threshold of the
00:13:50.379 --> 00:13:53.000
matrimonial home to prevent the bride from becoming
00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:57.600
possessed through her feet. Men's feet presumably
00:13:57.600 --> 00:14:01.500
featured some natural spirit repellent, and as
00:14:01.500 --> 00:14:03.399
far -fetched as it all sounds, I'm sure there
00:14:03.399 --> 00:14:05.480
are many brides who will testify to the repellent
00:14:05.480 --> 00:14:08.909
nature of their husband's feet. In the first
00:14:08.909 --> 00:14:11.950
English prayer book of 1549, a more positive
00:14:11.950 --> 00:14:14.549
view was stated. Ceremony was brought into the
00:14:14.549 --> 00:14:17.110
body of the church and was now accompanied by
00:14:17.110 --> 00:14:20.409
a compulsory little sermon on why God had ordained
00:14:20.409 --> 00:14:23.169
marriage. Angela's claim that this new prayer
00:14:23.169 --> 00:14:26.309
book gave a more positive view is hogwash. And
00:14:26.309 --> 00:14:29.009
as we've seen, her attempt to justify this claim
00:14:29.009 --> 00:14:32.929
by the change in location for the vows only compounds
00:14:32.929 --> 00:14:37.240
that falsehood. Several of Angela's errors appear
00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:40.240
rooted in an approach to research that never
00:14:40.240 --> 00:14:43.620
ventured beyond Wikipedia. So first, some background.
00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:48.019
The revision to marriage on which Tilby was commenting
00:14:48.019 --> 00:14:51.299
was called the solemnization of matrimony, part
00:14:51.299 --> 00:14:54.539
of this 1549 prayer book. The service described
00:14:54.539 --> 00:14:57.019
in the new prayer book, though, was in substantial
00:14:57.019 --> 00:14:59.960
part simply a translation of its predecessor
00:14:59.960 --> 00:15:03.840
from Latin to English. Now that predecessor was
00:15:03.840 --> 00:15:06.110
the order for the consecration of marriage in
00:15:06.110 --> 00:15:08.370
a thing called the Sarum Rite, which was the
00:15:08.370 --> 00:15:11.129
prevailing church manual of the time. Sarum denoted
00:15:11.129 --> 00:15:13.450
Salisbury, which was the diocese in which the
00:15:13.450 --> 00:15:16.649
most widely adopted manual was developed. The
00:15:16.649 --> 00:15:18.809
Sarum Rite was in Latin, but it instructed the
00:15:18.809 --> 00:15:21.570
priest to conduct the marriage in his mother
00:15:21.570 --> 00:15:24.330
tongue. The Sarum Rite was very similar to the
00:15:24.330 --> 00:15:27.049
rite on which it was based of the Church of Rome.
00:15:27.490 --> 00:15:31.450
Now Cranmer was an enthusiastic Protestant reformer.
00:15:31.850 --> 00:15:34.529
This enthusiasm infused an extensive operation
00:15:34.529 --> 00:15:37.169
to anglicise the Church in England under his
00:15:37.169 --> 00:15:40.230
direction as Archbishop. Reformers put emphasis
00:15:40.230 --> 00:15:43.990
on accessibility and understanding. English was
00:15:43.990 --> 00:15:46.909
favoured over Latin. Congregational participation
00:15:46.909 --> 00:15:49.490
was encouraged, with much less prominence for
00:15:49.490 --> 00:15:52.389
ritual, for the centrality of the priest and
00:15:52.389 --> 00:15:55.720
the altar. It was the end of the road in this
00:15:55.720 --> 00:15:58.279
English church for Roman concepts such as purgatory,
00:15:58.480 --> 00:16:01.440
penance and the veneration of the saints. Another
00:16:01.440 --> 00:16:04.179
major casualty was a concept represented by the
00:16:04.179 --> 00:16:07.600
truly wonderful word transubstantiation. This
00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:09.620
was the Roman church belief that the ceremonial
00:16:09.620 --> 00:16:12.259
bread and wine of communion was the actual flesh
00:16:12.259 --> 00:16:14.580
and blood of Jesus, meaning that Christ's body
00:16:14.580 --> 00:16:17.139
and blood were, for believers, physically present
00:16:17.139 --> 00:16:22.190
and eaten during the ceremony. Cramner and his
00:16:22.190 --> 00:16:25.049
Protestant reformer allies had a much less permissive
00:16:25.049 --> 00:16:28.730
approach to sacraments than the Romans. They
00:16:28.730 --> 00:16:31.309
held that only baptism and something called the
00:16:31.309 --> 00:16:34.769
Eucharist would remain as sacraments. Before
00:16:34.769 --> 00:16:38.230
having read about this, to understand just how
00:16:38.230 --> 00:16:40.509
willing Angela Tilby was to deceive the audience
00:16:40.509 --> 00:16:43.889
of Radio 4, I had little idea of what a sacrament
00:16:43.889 --> 00:16:46.429
was. I now have a little more and rather wish
00:16:46.429 --> 00:16:49.570
I didn't. There are much better things. with
00:16:49.570 --> 00:16:52.669
which to fill a mind. In any event, the Roman
00:16:52.669 --> 00:16:55.590
Church has seven sacraments. This revision down
00:16:55.590 --> 00:16:59.389
to two by Cramner was quite a hefty cut. His
00:16:59.389 --> 00:17:02.370
prayer book saw to it that marriage was demoted
00:17:02.370 --> 00:17:06.150
from this lofty holiness. Now, contrary to Tilby's
00:17:06.150 --> 00:17:08.890
intimation, the prayer book, it could be argued,
00:17:09.029 --> 00:17:12.730
objectively reduced the holiness of the marriage
00:17:12.730 --> 00:17:15.950
ceremony. Never mind her confusion over church
00:17:15.950 --> 00:17:19.740
porches. For this fall from sacramental grace,
00:17:19.799 --> 00:17:22.019
though, marriage was given something of a parachute.
00:17:22.680 --> 00:17:24.660
Cranmer may not have believed in marriage as
00:17:24.660 --> 00:17:27.720
a sacrament, but he did believe that it was ordained
00:17:27.720 --> 00:17:30.160
by God and that it constituted something called
00:17:30.160 --> 00:17:33.319
a holy estate. So having whipped off the stripes
00:17:33.319 --> 00:17:35.900
of sacrament, the Archbishop felt obliged to
00:17:35.900 --> 00:17:38.319
make up the difference, and he did this with
00:17:38.319 --> 00:17:41.670
a new vow. Technically it was an addition to
00:17:41.670 --> 00:17:44.910
one of the existing five vows. But this addition
00:17:44.910 --> 00:17:48.109
obliged the couple getting married to live together
00:17:48.109 --> 00:17:51.789
after God's ordinance in the holiest state of
00:17:51.789 --> 00:17:55.170
matrimony. So let's focus for a second on these
00:17:55.170 --> 00:17:58.269
vows. The original vows of Rome and Salisbury
00:17:58.269 --> 00:18:00.650
can be separated into five sections. You could
00:18:00.650 --> 00:18:04.269
broadly say there were five vows. Important to
00:18:04.269 --> 00:18:07.339
note there were other manuals. and many variations
00:18:07.339 --> 00:18:11.079
in the Latin word choice and translation. Broadly
00:18:11.079 --> 00:18:13.640
though, there was consensus, and the five sections
00:18:13.640 --> 00:18:16.480
of the Latin vowels were in order. At number
00:18:16.480 --> 00:18:20.220
one, consent. Number two, cherishment. Number
00:18:20.220 --> 00:18:23.900
three, constancy. Number four, commitment. And
00:18:23.900 --> 00:18:27.240
number five, ceaselessness. Now on our website,
00:18:27.500 --> 00:18:30.460
secondthoughtfortheday .com, the Latin is reproduced
00:18:30.460 --> 00:18:32.559
next to each of the vowels that we're just going
00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:35.789
to... run through. So first consent, do you wish
00:18:35.789 --> 00:18:38.329
to have this man stroke woman as your groom stroke
00:18:38.329 --> 00:18:41.390
bride? Next came cherishment. The cherishment
00:18:41.390 --> 00:18:45.150
vow features a notorious difference between that
00:18:45.150 --> 00:18:47.930
for the bride and that for the groom. Instead
00:18:47.930 --> 00:18:50.109
of vowing to love, honour, hold and protect,
00:18:50.529 --> 00:18:53.210
the bride was saddled with having to obey, serve,
00:18:53.410 --> 00:18:57.769
love, honour and protect. It's also worth noting
00:18:57.769 --> 00:19:02.009
the love in this cherishment section of the vows.
00:19:02.650 --> 00:19:06.630
The Latin word used here was diligere, which
00:19:06.630 --> 00:19:08.970
I've almost certainly not pronounced correctly.
00:19:10.009 --> 00:19:12.369
But it means much more than having affection,
00:19:12.589 --> 00:19:14.769
and it's not Christian love, it's not erotic
00:19:14.769 --> 00:19:18.509
love. Of particular relevance, it meant an expression
00:19:18.509 --> 00:19:21.569
of love demonstrated by having committed to a
00:19:21.569 --> 00:19:24.430
choice. The object of your affection is dignified
00:19:24.430 --> 00:19:28.990
by your choice to love it. The word is also often
00:19:28.990 --> 00:19:33.359
translated as esteem. and worship, alongside
00:19:33.359 --> 00:19:36.519
cherish and various others. We then have the
00:19:36.519 --> 00:19:40.559
constancy vow, familiar to everyone, in sickness
00:19:40.559 --> 00:19:43.799
and in health. The commitment section had two
00:19:43.799 --> 00:19:47.079
parts, and this is important because this is
00:19:47.079 --> 00:19:49.099
one of the sections that Tilby claims was brand
00:19:49.099 --> 00:19:52.279
new in that little sermon she mentioned. And
00:19:52.279 --> 00:19:54.660
it's the bit that demands that the bride and
00:19:54.660 --> 00:19:57.579
the groom each be to each other as they ought
00:19:57.579 --> 00:20:01.029
to be. And then the second was the familiar forsaking
00:20:01.029 --> 00:20:05.690
of all others. In fairness, Cranmer did expand
00:20:05.690 --> 00:20:08.109
a little with a couple of explanations of what
00:20:08.109 --> 00:20:11.430
being to the other what you ought to be involved,
00:20:11.910 --> 00:20:14.670
the way he put it was for mutual society help
00:20:14.670 --> 00:20:18.470
and comfort. I guess that might be necessary
00:20:18.470 --> 00:20:21.650
if the bride and groom weren't aware of how they
00:20:21.650 --> 00:20:24.250
ought to behave towards one another in a marriage.
00:20:25.109 --> 00:20:28.539
And then finally we have ceaselessness. and stay
00:20:28.539 --> 00:20:30.700
with him or her for as long as you both shall
00:20:30.700 --> 00:20:35.799
live. Now, the prayer book added to these vows.
00:20:35.980 --> 00:20:38.480
The new bit joined the consent vow right at the
00:20:38.480 --> 00:20:42.559
top, which became, using the 1549 wording, Wilt
00:20:42.559 --> 00:20:44.859
thou have this man to be thy wedded husband,
00:20:44.940 --> 00:20:47.140
to live together after God's ordinance in the
00:20:47.140 --> 00:20:51.859
holy estate of matrimony? Now, there was no explanation
00:20:51.859 --> 00:20:55.950
in the Sarum rite. of the wedding service, on
00:20:55.950 --> 00:20:57.849
why God ordained marriage, although you could
00:20:57.849 --> 00:20:59.890
reasonably infer from Tilby's account that there
00:20:59.890 --> 00:21:02.950
was, but it wasn't as though there was no understanding
00:21:02.950 --> 00:21:05.029
among priests and their congregations of the
00:21:05.029 --> 00:21:07.769
reasons that God did ordain marriage. It's simply
00:21:07.769 --> 00:21:09.869
that this understanding didn't get a mandatory
00:21:09.869 --> 00:21:13.809
plug in the order of service. But since Cramner
00:21:13.809 --> 00:21:17.549
has made this ordination an addition to an actual
00:21:17.549 --> 00:21:20.329
vow, you can understand his motivation to sex
00:21:20.329 --> 00:21:23.490
up the order. with some well -placed explanatory
00:21:23.490 --> 00:21:28.450
notes. And it was the third reason included in
00:21:28.450 --> 00:21:32.549
the explanatory notes of God's ordination in
00:21:32.549 --> 00:21:34.769
the new prayer book that Tilby claimed was quite
00:21:34.769 --> 00:21:37.869
new. And this is how it appears in the 1549 original.
00:21:38.609 --> 00:21:41.309
Thirdly, for the mutual society, help and comfort
00:21:41.309 --> 00:21:44.109
that the one ought to have of the other, both
00:21:44.109 --> 00:21:47.269
in prosperity and adversity, into the holiest
00:21:47.269 --> 00:21:49.950
state these two persons present come now to be
00:21:49.950 --> 00:21:54.119
joined. The mutual society, mutual help and mutual
00:21:54.119 --> 00:21:56.519
comfort that the one ought to have of the other
00:21:56.519 --> 00:21:59.720
simply spells out what is already in the commitment
00:21:59.720 --> 00:22:02.640
section of the Sarum Rite vows. As a bride ought
00:22:02.640 --> 00:22:05.279
to be to her groom and as a groom ought to be
00:22:05.279 --> 00:22:08.599
to his bride. Then we have a pre -run of the
00:22:08.599 --> 00:22:11.180
constancy section of the Sarum Rite vow but health
00:22:11.180 --> 00:22:13.319
becomes prosperity and sickness becomes adversity.
00:22:13.880 --> 00:22:17.319
The genuinely new section is into the holiest
00:22:17.319 --> 00:22:19.740
state these two people now come to be joined.
00:22:20.430 --> 00:22:23.529
Tilby fails to include this new bit in her commentary
00:22:23.529 --> 00:22:26.930
about new bits, while also including old bits
00:22:26.930 --> 00:22:30.569
and claiming them to be new. That's quite a feat.
00:22:30.710 --> 00:22:33.269
It does provide an excellent illustration of
00:22:33.269 --> 00:22:35.789
how quickly the truth can suffer when confronted
00:22:35.789 --> 00:22:38.890
with a scarcity of curiosity and an abundance
00:22:38.890 --> 00:22:43.190
of faith. The presenters, particularly the Christian
00:22:43.190 --> 00:22:46.049
presenters of Thought for the Day, quite frequently
00:22:46.049 --> 00:22:50.619
mention truth and its seeking, yet... they demonstrate
00:22:50.619 --> 00:22:54.119
repeatedly a lack of curiosity for the truth
00:22:54.119 --> 00:22:56.880
and an abundance of faith that gets in the way
00:22:56.880 --> 00:23:00.079
of them exploring it. For now, back to Angela
00:23:00.079 --> 00:23:05.460
and her comments on love and cherish. Klanmer
00:23:05.460 --> 00:23:08.819
also added the words to love and to cherish to
00:23:08.819 --> 00:23:12.480
the marriage vows. Love had long been in the
00:23:12.480 --> 00:23:16.329
vows. Cherish, esteem, worship also feature in
00:23:16.329 --> 00:23:18.809
various translations of the various Latin church
00:23:18.809 --> 00:23:22.130
manuals. It wasn't that Cramner added love and
00:23:22.130 --> 00:23:25.109
cherish. What Cramner did was remove opportunity
00:23:25.109 --> 00:23:28.109
for interpretation by the priest that inevitably
00:23:28.109 --> 00:23:31.349
accompanied extemporaneous translation of the
00:23:31.349 --> 00:23:34.230
Latin into English. It was Cramner's view that
00:23:34.230 --> 00:23:37.349
love and cherish was appropriate as the translation
00:23:37.349 --> 00:23:40.250
to be in the first formal English order of the
00:23:40.250 --> 00:23:43.039
marriage service. he most certainly wasn't adding
00:23:43.039 --> 00:23:47.599
anything different. In Tilby's defence, the Wikipedia
00:23:47.599 --> 00:23:50.160
page on the Book of Common Prayer does say in
00:23:50.160 --> 00:23:52.279
the final sentence of its section about marriage,
00:23:52.599 --> 00:23:55.660
Cranmer added the words to love and cherish.
00:23:55.940 --> 00:23:58.460
This seems like an excellent advertisement for
00:23:58.460 --> 00:24:01.779
not restricting your research exclusively to
00:24:01.779 --> 00:24:04.819
Wikipedia. The claim that Cranmer added love
00:24:04.819 --> 00:24:07.380
and cherish to the wedding vows is at best an
00:24:07.380 --> 00:24:11.619
oversimplification, and at worst, False, concealing
00:24:11.619 --> 00:24:15.259
the truth behind those changes. Finally, we have
00:24:15.259 --> 00:24:17.599
the comments on the happy marriage of Cranmer
00:24:17.599 --> 00:24:20.220
and how this influenced his approach to the revised
00:24:20.220 --> 00:24:23.819
service in his prayer book. The historian Tilby
00:24:23.819 --> 00:24:27.880
cites Mr McCulloch did not pass judgment on the
00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:30.640
happiness of Cranmer's marriages. Cramner had
00:24:30.640 --> 00:24:33.480
two wives, perhaps making him uniquely qualified
00:24:33.480 --> 00:24:36.059
as a bishop of his epoch for the revising of
00:24:36.059 --> 00:24:38.640
wedding services. His marriage experience might
00:24:38.640 --> 00:24:41.720
best though be described as chequered. Dates
00:24:41.720 --> 00:24:43.480
and details are sketchy, but it seems likely
00:24:43.480 --> 00:24:46.019
his first wife died in childbirth within three
00:24:46.019 --> 00:24:48.380
years of the two of them having met. There is
00:24:48.380 --> 00:24:50.900
no evidence of Cramner ever having commented
00:24:50.900 --> 00:24:53.039
or written about this experience, which was no
00:24:53.039 --> 00:24:56.380
doubt painful for him. Although this takes nothing
00:24:56.380 --> 00:24:58.980
away from the esteem Cramner may or may not have
00:24:58.980 --> 00:25:02.099
held, for this marriage. His second marriage
00:25:02.099 --> 00:25:05.299
was quite different and took place almost entirely
00:25:05.299 --> 00:25:08.819
in secret, not just the wedding, the whole marriage,
00:25:09.059 --> 00:25:12.220
and featured long periods of separation. This
00:25:12.220 --> 00:25:14.880
was the result of him having ignored his vows
00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:18.299
of clerical celibacy, so perhaps not the ideal
00:25:18.299 --> 00:25:22.079
arbiter of vows. Then he was promoted to Archbishop,
00:25:22.079 --> 00:25:24.779
which forced him to return to England from continental
00:25:24.779 --> 00:25:28.099
Europe. Keeping his wife and daughter secret
00:25:28.099 --> 00:25:30.960
was, in the words of McCulloch, astonishing.
00:25:32.039 --> 00:25:34.539
Cramner clearly valued marriage. It was certainly
00:25:34.539 --> 00:25:38.460
difficult to keep him from doing it. But there
00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:41.339
is no record of him ever having commented on
00:25:41.339 --> 00:25:43.700
the happiness or otherwise of these marriages.
00:25:44.819 --> 00:25:48.519
It seems likely that his second marriage did
00:25:48.519 --> 00:25:50.960
inform how he approached his tweaks to the wedding
00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:54.099
ceremony when preparing a new English manual
00:25:54.099 --> 00:25:58.519
for all churches in England. So in summary, following
00:25:58.519 --> 00:26:01.099
our fact check to ensure we'd not been too harsh
00:26:01.099 --> 00:26:03.799
on Tilby, we instead found that she'd made many
00:26:03.799 --> 00:26:06.720
more errors than we'd originally found. She'd
00:26:06.720 --> 00:26:08.859
used a straw man argument to produce an invented
00:26:08.859 --> 00:26:11.160
contrast between the theology of marriages before
00:26:11.160 --> 00:26:13.720
and after the Middle Ages. She intimated that
00:26:13.720 --> 00:26:16.099
pre -prayer book marriage was less holy, which
00:26:16.099 --> 00:26:19.140
is a direct inversion of the truth. She suggested
00:26:19.140 --> 00:26:21.559
that pre -Cranmer marriage was merely contractual
00:26:21.559 --> 00:26:23.779
lust control. when, as we pointed out in our
00:26:23.779 --> 00:26:26.299
original broadcast on this, the Sarumrite marriage
00:26:26.299 --> 00:26:29.980
had long been regarded as a divine act. What
00:26:29.980 --> 00:26:31.980
we hadn't realised at the time was that marriage
00:26:31.980 --> 00:26:35.220
before Cranmer had been a holy sacrament. Thomas
00:26:35.220 --> 00:26:38.940
effectively demoted its holiness. Tilby then
00:26:38.940 --> 00:26:41.579
falsely claimed that the third reason for God
00:26:41.579 --> 00:26:44.000
-ordination of marriage in the service sermon
00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:47.099
was completely new, when it had in fact been
00:26:47.099 --> 00:26:49.680
in the service for hundreds of years. And she
00:26:49.680 --> 00:26:52.240
finished off. by misrepresenting both a historian
00:26:52.240 --> 00:26:55.720
and the history of love and cherish in marriage
00:26:55.720 --> 00:27:00.059
vows. Here's how we concluded the original review
00:27:00.059 --> 00:27:04.640
of Tilby's broadcast. What a wasted opportunity
00:27:04.640 --> 00:27:07.819
and a pointless effort. And that's before we
00:27:07.819 --> 00:27:13.160
consider the barbs. Just rubbish. Rubbish indeed.
00:27:13.599 --> 00:27:18.279
Tilby is deceitful. She manipulates her sources.
00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:25.039
Dozens of false claims. This truly is an appalling
00:27:25.039 --> 00:27:28.519
broadcast. And the more we look at it, the worse
00:27:28.519 --> 00:27:33.039
it becomes. Thank you for listening. If you'd
00:27:33.039 --> 00:27:35.460
like to learn more about what we do and why,
00:27:35.640 --> 00:27:38.220
or to read show notes, find transcripts, or listen
00:27:38.220 --> 00:27:40.180
to any of the other podcasts that we've not yet
00:27:40.180 --> 00:27:41.140
put out on the main feed,
