Overseas colonialism hadn't started yet during Henry II, and Henry I oversaw the abolition of slavery in England. Henry II was also responsible for the English breaking from the Catholic church, which is normally the kind of thing that gets progressives wet.
I don't imagine they're thinking about this any further than a desire to decolonise England ... which, given that it's not been colonised since about 1066, seems to merely be a code phrase for removing those horrible English from the place.
Henry II (Henry VIII is the one who broke from the Catholic church). The funny thing is Henry II didn't do any colonizing unless you count Wales and Ireland.
Overseas colonialism hadn't started yet during Henry II, and Henry I oversaw the abolition of slavery in England. Henry II was also responsible for the English breaking from the Catholic church, which is normally the kind of thing that gets progressives wet.
I don't imagine they're thinking about this any further than a desire to decolonise England ... which, given that it's not been colonised since about 1066, seems to merely be a code phrase for removing those horrible English from the place.
Wrong Henry.
Which Henry are they angry about? I'll readily admit that bong history easily confuses me, so many Henrys and Eds.
Henry II (Henry VIII is the one who broke from the Catholic church). The funny thing is Henry II didn't do any colonizing unless you count Wales and Ireland.
IMO the Thomas Beckett affair set England on the path to Protestantism.
Wales and Ireland are the reason I hedged with the "overseas" qualifier with regards to colonialism, as I'm particularly not well versed in that area.