Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Khatru on March 06, 2016, 10:51:06 AM

Title: Richard Beake
Post by: Khatru on March 06, 2016, 10:51:06 AM
I'd happily buy him a drink or two....

6 December, 1 Charles I.—Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentishtowne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey "that he cared not a f . . . . for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A . . . ."

 S. P. Reg.

From the Middlesex Rolls (1625)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol3/pp1-6
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Free Willy on March 06, 2016, 10:54:08 AM
I'd happily buy him a drink or two....

You'll have to hurry....he's been dead these past four hundred years.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Free Willy on March 06, 2016, 10:57:34 AM
I'd happily buy him a drink or two....

6 December, 1 Charles I.—Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentishtowne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey "that he cared not a f . . . . for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A . . . ."

 S. P. Reg.

From the Middlesex Rolls (1625)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol3/pp1-6

Ah, Khatru taking solace from an ancient document. That's something we antitheists never do.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Shaker on March 06, 2016, 11:23:03 AM
I like the sound of this chap.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Free Willy on March 06, 2016, 11:32:59 AM
I like the sound of this chap.
You can definitely say he wasn't up against the Beak, but more like the judge was up against the Beake.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Shaker on March 06, 2016, 11:34:08 AM
Ah, Khatru taking solace from an ancient document. That's something we antitheists never do.
"We"? Come over to the dark side, Vlad?
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Free Willy on March 06, 2016, 11:43:52 AM
"We"? Come over to the dark side, Vlad?
No merely pointing out the humbuggery of the antitheist position which knocks identification with old documents in the case of religion but identifies with it's own old documents.

Wearing my amateur (gifted) psychologists hat, you identify with Beake as you live in a fantasy world wear Plucky English Antitheists are being harassed by an Oppressive theocratic dictatorship forcing you to attend church.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Shaker on March 06, 2016, 11:46:19 AM
No merely pointing out the humbuggery of the antitheist position which knocks identification with old documents in the case of religion but identifies with it's own old documents.
It's a court record, Vlad, not something purporting to be revealed truth from God.

Quote
Wearing my amateur (gifted) psychologists hat, you identify with Beake as you live in a fantasy world wear Plucky English Antitheists are being harassed by an Oppressive theocratic dictatorship forcing you to attend church.
Very amateur indeed by the look of it, as that doesn't happen any more. It did once, though - the 1558 Act of Uniformity.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Bubbles on March 06, 2016, 11:48:18 AM
Interesting OP.

I like the link there is even a diary in there from the 1600s

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/roger-whitley-diary/1684-97

I'm surprised at how much wine he drank.

Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Free Willy on March 06, 2016, 11:50:00 AM
It's a court record, Vlad, not something purporting to be revealed truth from God.
Very amateur indeed by the look of it, as that doesn't happen any more. It did once, though - the 1558 Act of Uniformity.
I'll remember that when you bleat about Bishops in the House of Lords.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Shaker on March 06, 2016, 11:50:07 AM
I love old diaries so that was a real find. I'll enjoy having a read of that later. This was around the time when Puritanism made diary-keeping a popular practice in Britain.
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Shaker on March 06, 2016, 11:50:48 AM
I'll remember that when you bleat about Bishops in the House of Lords.
Remember what?
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Bubbles on March 06, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
Medicine, there were lots of fakes, killing people  :(

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/london-physicians/1550-1640/aire-william
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Hope on March 06, 2016, 05:38:27 PM
I'd happily buy him a drink or two....

6 December, 1 Charles I.—Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentishtowne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey "that he cared not a f . . . . for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A . . . ."

 S. P. Reg.

From the Middlesex Rolls (1625)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol3/pp1-6
Items like this, which suggest that there has never been 100% church attendance, could be seen to highlight the argument that attendance figures are moot figures.  What we don't know is whether he was a believer or not?  Was he a non-conformist who refused to attend church and attended some other form of service (for instance a chapel) instead?  Was he an atheist?  Was he a pagan?
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Humph Warden Bennett on March 07, 2016, 03:42:05 PM
I'd happily buy him a drink or two....

6 December, 1 Charles I.—Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentishtowne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey "that he cared not a f . . . . for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A . . . ."

 S. P. Reg.

From the Middlesex Rolls (1625)




http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol3/pp1-6

In those days Kentish Town was in the County of Middlesex, before London had started its poisonous growth.

(Look if Ippy can do it, so can I  :P)
Title: Re: Richard Beake
Post by: Khatru on March 08, 2016, 09:25:42 AM
No merely pointing out the humbuggery of the antitheist position which knocks identification with old documents in the case of religion but identifies with it's own old documents.

Wearing my amateur (gifted) psychologists hat, you identify with Beake as you live in a fantasy world wear Plucky English Antitheists are being harassed by an Oppressive theocratic dictatorship forcing you to attend church.

Fantasy world?

That's rich coming from someone who sees the supreme cosmic mega being in old documents.