Bloody Mary And Anne Askew

 

 

Mary I of England (1516–1558)

I always felt sorry for the daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine (1485–1536), Mary I, because he wronged both of them in his steadfast pursuit of a living son. Not even producing said son, Edward VI (1537–1553),  secured what he wanted the most, i.e. the conservation of the Tudor name through heredity, because this coveted son died so very young. Henry's two daughters, namely Mary I and Elizabeth I (1533-1603), might have been able to re-establish the Tudor-dynasty, had the rules been different so that a girl didn't lose her birth name by marriage. Anyway, Elizabeth didn't marry, and none of them had children of their own. That means that the Tudor-name was absorbed by their relatives and heirs to the throne, the Stuarts. 

My reason for feeling sorry for Mary I is that I see her as someone, who always got the thick end of the rod, so to speak. It started with her parents: She was a firm Catholic, but her father abandoned the Catholic Church, establishing The Church of England (The Anglican Church). Also, he declared, his marriage to her mother void, which changed her status as a princess into an illegitimate daughter. All of that - as well as a lot more - must have been extremely traumatic to her. Normally, a king found appropriate spouses for his children at an early age, but somehow that didn't happen to Mary. She seems to have been almost forgotten by her father, and maybe that's why she fell so very deeply in love with her Spanish cousin, Philip (II), whom she did marry although everybody seemed to be against their marriage. They were married for four years, but her new husband only stayed with her in England for 15 months in all, which is quite telling. Her strong wishes to have a child - i.e. an heir who might reestablish The Catholic Faith and The Roman Catholic Church in England - came to nothing, although she believed that she was pregnant several times. I would say, that not many would have been able not to become frustrated, angry and maybe even revengeful under these circumstances. Maybe all of this personal adversity made the basis for her - to me - quite unexpected cruelty. I knew that she had almost 300 non-Catholics executed by burning them alive on the stake, and I also knew of her nickname "Bloody Mary", but somehow I didn't grasp the meaning of her misdeeds untill I read about the Protestant poet, Anne Askew. Not that Mary was the one who performed the torture or execution herself, but it sort of made these cruelties vivid to me: This was what that nickname meant. 

Anne Askew (1521–1546) was a convinced, passionate and well-read Protestant. She preached her beliefs, wrote poetry and all in all must have been a nuisance to some powerful people, one of these being her husband. When she left him he, who was a Roman Catholic like Mary I, found her and had her arrested for "heresy".  In Newgate she was tortured cruelly on the rack - "until her sinews snapped" - but still she refused to give the names of other Protestants or to denounce her beliefs. 

After this cruel torture she was burnt on the stake, but the picture of that is not depicting it as it was: She wasn't able to stand up and had been carried on a chair from the prison to the place of execution. As far as I know, Mary didn't expect every "heretic" to be tortured this cruelly, but the fact that it happened to Anne Askew in her name makes me wonder at her and the impression I've had of her until now. 

Yes, both of them were victims to circumstances of the time period as well as of men, and I find the fate of both Mary and Anne quite tragic. Also all of this makes me think of how religion still works havoc in 2026. 

Anne Askew's Ballad from when she was in Newgate

By Anne Askew

 

Like as the armed knight

Appointed to the field,

With this world will I fight

And Faith shall be my shield.

Faith is that weapon strong

Which will not fail at need.

My foes, therefore, among

Therewith will I proceed.

As it is had in strength

And force of Christes way

It will prevail at length

Though all the devils say nay.

Faith in the fathers old

Obtained rightwisness

Which make me very bold

To fear no world's distress.

I now rejoice in heart

And Hope bid me do so

For Christ will take my part

And ease me of my woe.

Thou saist, lord, who so knock,

To them wilt thou attend.

Undo, therefore, the lock

And thy strong power send.

More enmyes now I have

Than hairs upon my head.

Let them not me deprave

But fight thou in my stead.

On thee my care I cast.

For all their cruel spight

I set not by their haste

For thou art my delight.

I am not she that list

My anchor to let fall

For every drizzling mist

My ship substancial.

Not oft use I to wright

In prose nor yet in rime,

Yet will I shew one sight

That I saw in my time.

I saw a rial throne

Where Justice should have sit

But in her stead was one

Of moody cruel wit.

Absorpt was rightwisness

As of the raging flood

Sathan in his excess

Suct up the guiltless blood.

Then thought I, Jesus lord,

When thou shalt judge us all

Hard is it to record

On these men what will fall.

Yet lord, I thee desire

For that they do to me

Let them not taste the hire

Of their iniquity.

Copyright Credit: The lattre examinacyon of Anne Askewe, latelye martyred in Smythfelde, by the 

 

 

 

Wikipedia 

 

https://www.poemhunter.com/anne-askew/ 

 

 

Poem by Else Cederborg: "Lost in Togetherness"

 

Lost in Togetherness

 

Starry -Eyed, walking together

Hand in hand

I hold you, and you hold me

Somehow, still quite lost

 

All Rights Reserved © EC

 

A Few Broodings About The End of the World

 

The predictions of The End of the World are numerous, and as people have been told this over and over without the world actually ending, it's BS and nothing but that. Saying that, I'm fully aware that if I haven't forgotten the prediction for this year at that time, I shall wake up on the predicted date of November 13, (which very fittingly is a Friday), feeling just a tiny bit worried. Silly, but that's the way it is, just like when one has read a public astrology column, telling about riches beyond one's imagination coming one's way on a specific day or time period: One doesn't believe it shall happen, but then still, it might. Because of some very common psychological mechanisms that will be the special day, one buys a lottery ticket, at the same time fully aware that it most likely is money down the drain. 

I agree, but I don't find it very plausible that should we not be alone, then it will be some of those supposed "Aliens" out there, somwhere in Space, who shall kill us off and lay our planet bare. That's something humans may do to the population of foreign planets, just like we did to other people and cultures on our own planet. To take for granted that aliens from another planet are out to kill us in a "swatting flies"-manner signals a special paranoia, which was born out of our own cruel actions on Earth in the past. Or put another way: They may or they may not, but as they haven't done it yet, why assume that they will? Besides, our idea of those aliens being wonder-creatures of intelligence may be put to shame. Maybe we, in reality, are the most intelligent creatures of the universe although we constantly prove that in some respects we are downright stupid, going on kicking our own butt, so to speak.

I find it very interesting that all the big religions seem to have notions of a religious figure which Christians call "The Antichrist". They are not the same, but they resemble each other. All of them are connected to an idea of "The End of the World" as moving from something totay defiled and sinful to its opposite: After the ultimate badness comes the true, pure happiness. In Christianity Jesus comes back in "The Rapture", the evil Antichrist is killed and his spell upon humans is put to an end. Because of that detail I truly understand why so many see tRump as The Antichrist. In my opinion he is evilness incarnate, so why not give him the title of Antichrist, which he deserves, although he didn't exactly covet it?

As we know there have been many non-fulfilled "End-Days" up through history, so this new one is just one in many. One of the interesting things about it is, that it's predicted to be 10 days after The Midterms in the USA. It would have been even more interesting had it been on the date: November 3. That would have been positively uncanny .... 

https://www.popsci.com/science/world-end-overpopulation-doomsday-november-2026/?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events 

 

https://www.mythic-harmonies.com/norse-mythology/ragnarok-norse-mythology-end-of-the-world/ 

 

https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/end-of-the-world-according-to-science-and-religion 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_World_(Skeeter_Davis_song) 

 

When Lady Luck Is A Tease

 

Or let's not? After all, it may be a bit more difficult than you imagined it to be. Robbers, murderers, kidnappers, hackers or whatever may take for granted that their crimes just depend on their decision to commit them to succeed. As we - the grown-ups of this world - know, that's not how it works. Not even planning will guarantee the outcome of any kind of actions. Actually, that may be what ruins everything when one part of the magic blend of instant success is lacking: Luck. Yes, I'm a great believer in luck, and the reason for that is, that I've had the experience of being out of luck for several time periods of my life. Something which was not very pleasant, but anyway, it made me think about the phenomenon of luck, what it is, and how one attains and (preferably) learns how to keep it.

"Lady Luck" is a fickle creature, and if there are means to make her stay and do one's bidding then they've escaped me. For instance, I needed to have some service on one of my computers which I had had the misfortune to give a bad rm-command. If you don't know the Linux-system, you most probably don't know what I'm talking about, but if you do, I suspect that by now you will feel some panicky tremors run up your spine. Anyway, to use a rm-command is like playing with fire which I had forgotten. Because of forgetting that, I shall now have a memory that is to stay with me for as long as I shall be using computers. Namely the horror of seeing files and comments sort of being "sucked up and disappear into thin air", right before my eyes. When I found a service that might save my computer, I felt very lucky indeed, but as I found out, this place wasn't exactly what it was set up to be. To find it and to start service with them felt like luck, but the place soon revealed its true nature: It was a disaster upon disaster-place All in all, this experience felt like receiving the gift of a beautiful box of chocolate, but when you opens it, this is what you find:  

Lady luck didn't side with me, so by now my poor, wounded computer will be out of circulation. Luckily for me, I do have substitutes, but it still feels like a slap in the face, because it's connected with the first feeling at finding the service which was that of luck. Had I not felt lucky, it wouldn't have hit that hard, which is a fact I shall have to ponder a little bit until I (hopefully) come to terms with it.

 

Was Epstein the True Boss of the Boss?

 

The Playmates of Epstein were not the pre-puberty girls he trafficked, but the grown-up "boys" he shared his interests with, and who wanted a "piece of the cake, he had to offer". As we know, those "boys" were golden ones from the international "Elite", who owed their fame and status to their wealth, family connections and general influence. Because what these criminals did in their informal "club of abuse", their ill-begotten fame has often overshadowed that of the victims. However, these women have formed their own well-known group, and are out for justice. Their prime target is undoubtedly tRump, who had all kinds of ties with Epstein, and whom I suspect was a colleague of his or maybe even a co-worker. The meeting of Epstein-victims with tRump's appointed legal kingpin, Pam Bondi, came to nothing, which might have been expected from her past as a Florida AG when the Epstein-trafficking was in full bloom. To send her is like chosing the wolf to protect lambs, and it was obvious from the very beginning that she had no intention to do anything about the claims of the victims: They were let down once again.

 

However, among the many more or less unsubstantiated rumors about Epstein, there has been some suggesting that he wasn't the top-guy of the criminal organisation of trafficking, that he ran. Or put another way, he was only the puppet of someone even more vile, and also more influential. True/False? Well, he himself hasn't spoken of someone being his "boss", but a house servant of some kind said that he had one, namely his associate and, for a time period, lover, Ghislaine Maxwell. 

That claim may be in for investigation, but it's not substantiated by other witnesses. There is no doubt about Ghislaine Maxwell's taking part in his crimes, but it takes much more to be the main culprit or the disguised and secret "boss of the boss". Her alleged close friendship with the first wife of tRump, Ivana, ties her to that more than shady couple, and it's anybody's guess that all of them were work mates.

However, I'm prepared for new disclosures about that "maybe-boss-of-the-boss" who may hide in the shadows somewhere. I even let my imagination run rather free when it comes to that subject. Something one shouldn't let it do when the case is what I would call "crucial": In this case it's not a question of life and death for victims being abducted and raped right now. As far as we know, none of the by now grown-up victims sit chained up in freezing cellars or damp lofts. The immediate ordeal of those we know of is over, and now the case has moved on to the next stage, namely retribution for what they went through. Anyway, what set me going, looking for a "boss of the boss", is this not so very informative photo:

I believe in the possibility of something like that, and several names pop up in my mind, but not the proven identity of the one, this man might be referring to. WHO was he/she if he/she is more than the figment of his imagination? 

 

The Female Embalmer Who Had Sex With The Dead

Some male serial killers have told about how they had sex with some of their victims several days ofter killing them. They just couldn't let go of these lifeless objects of desires and lust, but had to keep their dead bodies and interact sexually with them. Some even have suggested that sex with a corpse was better than with the living ones. It's my impression that the true name of that game is COTROL: The dead woman can't say or do something that the rapist feels upset about. 

 

 

And then there is this woman, who wasn't a serial killer or had killer-intentions. No, she didn't kill her victims, but she did have sex with them, namely after their death: She was a necrophiliac.

  

Karen Margaret Greenlee (born 1958) 

"Have sex with" doesn't quite cover the meaning of what she did, because being dead her rape victims - and rape it was - really didn't have any kind of say in what happened to them. She, being alive, was 100% in command which may very likely be what turned her on. I, for one, think it's the ability to decide what's going to happen - or nor happen - that's the what these people desire the most.

A drawing by Greenlee illustrating her perspective on necrophilia 

In time there have been many rumors of dead women being raped by males in all kinds of service jobs. The jobs in focus are the ones which are connected with hospitals or cemetaries, but this is the first case I've seen with a female culprit - and culprit she is.

In 1979, when Karen Greenlee was a 23 year old apprentice embalmer, she stole a hearse in Sacramento with a dead man's body inside it. She wasn't to be found for a couple of days. However, she left a written 4.5 page confession admitting to having had sex with 20 to 40 corpses. Obviously, California didn't suspect ever to see criminal cases like this one, as they had no necrophilia laws. That's why Karen Greenlee only got a ridiculous verdict of 11 days in jail and a $255 fine. It clearly reveals the legal status of the dead: None! By dying these citizens have been left without any rights, which I find wrong. Dead or alive they shouldn't be robbed of their rights as (former) citizens.   

 

Here she is, 23 years old, a culprit, but also - according to her father - a victim of rape as a very young child, and once again as a teenager. Could it be the lack of control that a rape victim experiences that later on turned her into a rapist of dead bodies? To me that seems quite logical, but maybe a wee bit too easy as an explanation.  - After her verdict Karen changed her name and sort of "disappeared" from the public eye.

 
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5iYIKxV42pvhKcLf2GtK3Q

 

https://www.audible.co.uk/podcast/Necrophile-Hall-of-Shame-David-Fuller-and-Karen-Greenlee/B0DM8NFL85 

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13676676/ 

 

https://youtu.be/K0xQepN0LZU?si=r24s9yvf4q9nsUG6 

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15675 

 

Wikipedia 

 

 

"Quiet, Piggy!!!!"

  

I think it happened on November 14, 2025, and it's an incident that is already legendary. A lot of tRumpian incidents are born to be just that: Legendary, not to be forgotten or glossed over, but this one has a special appeal, because it's gross: The scenery was Air Force one when tRump told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey to shut up when she asked him a question about the Epstein files. His misogynistic wording has become legendary in itself. It's been quoted over and over as the "trademark" of a man who can't abide women in any sort of power position, which obviously is how he sees a journalist. What he said was: "Quiet, Piggy!"

Catherine Lucey isn't a "piggy" which might be translated into "disgustingly fat, way beyond obese", but had that been the case, it shouldn't have been his concern as it's private. You may not like how people look, but it's none of your business and should not be commented. Actually, a comment on somebody's looks goes far beyond what's acceptable. When tRump mocked a disabled male journalist that was even more derogatory because there was no doubt about his disability. That means that we move from looks to something that goes beyond that, as a disability isn't a choice, but something that's inflicted on one. With the female journalist, Catherine Lucey, there might be a question of "interpreting" her looks: Is she or isn't she a disgusting glutton who has eaten herself into a "piggy" physical state? I would say "NO, she isn't", but still, she would have a right to do so: 

No matter what, it's obvious that female journalists are in for a fight when meeting tRump as there has been several incidents that go far beyond a professional disagreement. However, the Piggy-remark is the - until now - grossest one and it's not to be forgotten.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2025/11/18/trump-tells-reporter-quiet-piggy-after-epstein-email-question/87334816007/ 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/business/media/trump-reporter-khashoggi-saudis.html 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-attack-female-reporter-maggie-haberman-b3041485.html 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/30/donald-trump-kristen-welker-fcc-meet-the-press/91536303007/ 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpvirus/s/svVe7DrbYl