Elizabeth I and the Church of England

[ltwin]

Yep.

I suspect we have different editions of MacCulloch. That’s from pp. 280-282 in mine.

Maybe. I only purchased mine about 2 years ago. I love that book. It’s like the best way to get to the bottom of the Reformation, and I love studying this time period.

 

[esieffe]

I have not read any other posts so forgive me if I put out the same information.

Had Elizabeth converted from her Father’s Church of England, she would have been steered towards marring a Catholic Sovereign from Spain or France. She did not want this. Her Sister Mary [a.k.a. Bloody Mary] had put many to fire at the stake.

Many documentaries I have watched show that she was active in the Church of England. [Her father’s solution for circumventing the Pope and Divorce] Henry VIII wanted a male heir as we all know, but loved his daughters. I don’t remember why Henry did not keep Elizabeth at Court.

To sum up, Elizabeth was her own Monarch. She wanted to rule and rule she did. She did not want to be dictated to by anyone. This meant rejecting the Catholic apparatus in power left by her sister.

I did and do admire Elizabeth I. I can do and say this still being the obedient yet free thinking Catholic that I am!

 

[GKC]

Maybe. I only purchased mine about 2 years ago. I love that book. It’s like the best way to get to the bottom of the Reformation, and I love studying this time period.

Mine’s the American 1st ed/1st printing. Had it around 10+ years, I think.

I know what it means to find the book that explicates, unites, illuminates a subject best. Mine is Scarisbrick, for Henry. Of course, you have to read all sorts of stuff to realize just which book that might be.

 

[Picky_Picky]

oh that is right. I forgot when Mary 1 appeared. The 16th century was a fascinating one in English history.
did most of the Catholics remain in the north?
the English Catholics must have been saddened when Mary 1 failed to keep the church under Papal authority. Was it still called the Church of England under Mary 1 or no? I see why she was called Bloody Mary if that many people lost their life while she was queen. Too bad she did not have better advisers. Can anyone recommend a good biography on Mary 1? She and Elizabeth both saw their mothers horribly mistreated and tossed aside by Henry VIII.
How long did Mary 1 reign?
Did protestants revert to Catholicism under her reign and Catholics had to become protestants under Elizabeth?
When were Catholics allowed to practice their faith freely once again inEngland?

I suspect many ordinary people didn’t know whether they were Catholic or Protestant. They knew they were Christian, they went to their local church, they no doubt disliked change. I think Protestantism grew first (apart from among intellectuals) among skilled workers and small traders — people who’d learned to read and took to illegally reading English versions of the Scriptures. And they often combined this with, for the time, rather radical political views, which made them doubly dangerous, of course.

By the 16th Century Protestantism was common, but perhaps most so in the Midlands and South East. So, yes, Catholics were strongest in the North and the West.

Persecution of Catholics gradually declined after the religious conflicts of the 17th Century, but I’m afraid it wasn’t until the 19th Century that Catholics (and Nonconformists, too) achieved full civic equality.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The “Catholic” plots, weren’t much in the way of plots.

The real threat to the Church of England and the Crown would prove to come from Protestant quarters. Oliver Cromwell was a Calvinist who took down the Anglican King and installed himself as a dictator, until the Restoration. In that period England saw competing branches of Protestantism contesting with each other, while at the same time all suppressed Catholicism.

I agree on the whole that the threat from the Catholic plots can be overstated (and certainly that’s what Walsingham did). On the other hand the ones involving the Spanish fleet were somewhat worrying.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yep. And she was shrewd enough to strike a balance between what was seen at the time as the two opposite threats, from a sectarian point, to a stable English regime: Roman Catholicism, and Puritanism. She choose a central path, the original via media., to limit her fractious realm.

Although it can be argued this just left unfinished business, which returned to the agenda in a noisy way in the mid 17th Century.

Some excellent stuff in this thread.

 

[Picky_Picky]

By the 16th Century Protestantism was common

Oops, that’s a daft thing to say. Of course I’d been thinking of Lollardy as proto-Protestantism.

 

[GKC]

Although it can be argued this just left unfinished business, which returned to the agenda in a noisy way in the mid 17th Century.

Some excellent stuff in this thread.

Yep. I have been able to use “yep” more often than usual, saving any comments.

One would not have to argue it. It speaks for itself. But she took that path, for the peace of the realm, as the best before her, in her day.

 

[Yeoman]

Three good posts, looking at the complexity of history, and not waving (as it is all too often done) cardboard cutouts and cartoon images. You and Picky are fun to read, as I have noted before.

Thank you. I always very much look forward to reading your posts and sometimes read an topic just if I see your initials showing up on the thread list.

 

[Yeoman]

Yep. And she was shrewd enough to strike a balance between what was seen at the time as the two opposite threats, from a sectarian point, to a stable English regime: Roman Catholicism, and Puritanism. She choose a central path, the original via media., to limit her fractious realm.

Which makes me wonder, or rather fairly strongly suspect, that she viewed religion as merely something that she had to take into account, rather than actually adhere to, in order to reign. That is, if the Catholics had held the high cards, I suspect Elizabeth would have been a Catholic. I can’t ever see her being a Calvinist, however. I suspect that behind castle walls, she wasn’t all that much of anything.

That may sound cynical, but the same is not true of other English monarchs of the same period. Henry VIII had all sorts of vices, but he really did believe in the Faith, for all his numerous vices. Mary did believe in the Catholic Church. Edward VI really was a Protestant. And so on.

 

[GKC]

Thank you. I always very much look forward to reading your posts and sometimes read an topic just if I see your initials showing up on the thread list.

My blushes. You certainly won’t find much from me in this thread, I fear. Others are carrying the water just fine. Including, of course, your honorable self. Such small points as I might make are mere touches upon the substantive posts all about.

 

[Yeoman]

1. No moral civilized person would look at the actions of Henry VIII and come to the conclusion that any of his martial affairs were conducted properly. Had he not been a monarch he very well would have paid for his life for his crimes. Why would any Englishman support such a King except for fear or greed.
2. Due to the crimes of her father Elizabeth was not a legitament heir. In today’s society her father would have been forced to advocate and would be tried and the throne would have passed to another.
3. Elizabeth committed crimes against the Catholic Church, it’s followers and promoted a schism within the Church. There really was no other option than excommunication.

The Catholic Church is not the villain in this story and history has been greatly distorted. The logic that makes people believe that Jessie James was a cool western character instead of a vole blooded killing thief is the same logic that makes Elizabeth an admired figure.

I generally agree with you, save for the “legitimate heir” aspect of this story. An examination of English monarchs would show that for the bulk of English history, who is king or queen is subject to so many exceptions that there are virtually no rules.

I get your point, but it would be a mistake to assume that the revolving crowns aspect of this period of history was really novel in English history, as it wasn’t.

Pity the poor English soldiers in various contests for the crown, who were simple men who had no connection with either side. The War of the Roses (earlier of course) must have been a confusing mess for them, for example. And pity the poor Parish Priests of this period, who must have stayed up night after night trying to figure out if they were still Catholic, or what, or if Calvinist would appear with burning pitch forks at the door.

As an evil aside, if you want to have fun with American fans of the current monarchy, start pointing out prior English contests for the crown. Not the fairy princess type of story they like at all. Not that I think the current occupants are bad folks or anything.

 

[Yeoman]

My blushes. You certainly won’t find much from me in this thread, I fear. Others are carrying the water just fine. Including, of course, your honorable self. Such small points as I might make are mere touches upon the substantive posts all about.

You are too kind sir.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Which makes me wonder, or rather fairly strongly suspect, that she viewed religion as merely something that she had to take into account, rather than actually adhere to, in order to reign. That is, if the Catholics had held the high cards, I suspect Elizabeth would have been a Catholic. I can’t ever see her being a Calvinist, however. I suspect that behind castle walls, she wasn’t all that much of anything.

That may sound cynical, but the same is not true of other English monarchs of the same period. Henry VIII had all sorts of vices, but he really did believe in the Faith, for all his numerous vices. Mary did believe in the Catholic Church. Edward VI really was a Protestant. And so on.

Here is Lockyer*:

It is impossible to define exactly what was the nature of Eliabeth’s religious beliefs. She was certainly not a catholic, and during Mary’s reign she had chosen as her household servants men and women who were committedly protestant. She had also insisted on having an English Bible for her private use, and initially the services in her chapel were conducted in the vernacular. When Mary ordered her to change these to Latin, ‘according to the ancient and laudable custom of the Church’, she obeyed, but she pointed out that the English Litany had been ‘set forth in the King my father’s days’. Left to herself she might well have favoured a settlement close to that which had obtained in the closing years of Henry VIII, and once she became Queen she shocked protestant susceptibilities by retaining a silver crucifix and candle in the chapel royal.

But, Lockyer goes on to say, her freedom was in practice limited by the influence of the Cambridge graduates around Cecil who favoured reform, and the exiles returning from the Continent, heavily influenced by Calvin.

*Lockyer, R. (2005) Tudor and Stuart Britain, 3rd edn., Abingdon, Routledge

 

[JimmyG88]

We shouldn’t forget that while tolerated to an extent crippling fines were levied on Catholics who did not attend Church of England services and even heavier fines for attending mass. Catholics were likewise unable to hold responsible office of state (this also included non conformists and Jews) and led to Catholics and others using their talents in other directions such as philanthropy, manufacturing, banking and prison reform. Cromwell was undoubtedly worse for Catholics and interestingly after the restoration of the monarchy Charles II had a catholic queen and mass was said privately in London for many years and was a well attended open secret.

 

[GKC]

Which makes me wonder, or rather fairly strongly suspect, that she viewed religion as merely something that she had to take into account, rather than actually adhere to, in order to reign. That is, if the Catholics had held the high cards, I suspect Elizabeth would have been a Catholic. I can’t ever see her being a Calvinist, however. I suspect that behind castle walls, she wasn’t all that much of anything.

That may sound cynical, but the same is not true of other English monarchs of the same period. Henry VIII had all sorts of vices, but he really did believe in the Faith, for all his numerous vices. Mary did believe in the Catholic Church. Edward VI really was a Protestant. And so on.

Liz is not as well into my understanding, as is Henry, assuming he is, though I likely own as many works on the one as the other. I think her attitude was a little of both, pragmatic, realist, and driven by her view of political necessity. Religion could be a conflagration that would split the strained social fabric and rip her chair from beneath her as readily as Henry feared the succession issue would do to his dynastic successors. Whatever her personal beliefs (and she did seem to have them) they were not the constraints that she would impose on the populace, nor were they what drove her policies. The limits, as one might find in the Articles, were loose reins, and not strictly to be laid on the people, but on the clergy. And thus she would have peace, in her day. If she had to kill to get it. It was politics as theology/theology as politics, a mixture of two common themes in a new way.

Henry was more than willing to began to deal with the Continental reformers, as a political stick, himself. His adherence to the Catholic essentials seemed to fade as he aged. Edward I wouldn’t account much of anything, but a mouthpiece of the protectors. Which was a reformed mouthpiece, to be sure.

 

[Picky_Picky]

We shouldn’t forget that while tolerated to an extent crippling fines were levied on Catholics who did not attend Church of England services and even heavier fines for attending mass. Catholics were likewise unable to hold responsible office of state (this also included non conformists and Jews) and led to Catholics and others using their talents in other directions such as philanthropy, manufacturing, banking and prison reform. Cromwell was undoubtedly worse for Catholics and interestingly after the restoration of the monarchy Charles II had a catholic queen and mass was said privately in London for many years and was a well attended open secret.

Yes. But we shouldn’t believe the myths about mass wipe-outs of Catholics. There was strong support for Elizabeth among the Catholic population at large, many of whom, if they were gentry, attended their parish church as before, and as fitted their standing. Elizabeth chucked out a Bill which would have made attendance at Anglican communion compulsory, saying she would not have Catholics ‘molested by an inquisition’.

The senior lay Catholic in England, (then as now), the Duke of Norfolk, who had been a staunch supporter of Mary I, was made a knight of the Garter by Elizabeth and taken into her Privy Council. If he hadn’t indulged in a silly conspiracy with the Scottish queen he could have been a lasting influence in government. Silly chap lost his head.

 

[GKC]

Here is Lockyer*:

But, Lockyer goes on to say, her freedom was in practice limited by the influence of the Cambridge graduates around Cecil who favoured reform, and the exiles returning from the Continent, heavily influenced by Calvin.

*Lockyer, R. (2005) Tudor and Stuart Britain, 3rd edn., Abingdon, Routledge

And here’s Loades, first thing I found on the shelf:

“Elizabeth’s piety has some unusual features, such as an affection for modest ornaments and church music, but her Protestantism was strong, and her theological understanding considerable”

And, further to my point above, “It therefore became her considered and long-term policy not to force issues that did not have to be forced”.

Loades, D. (2006) ELIZABETH I, 1st TPB edn., Hambledon Continuum.

 

[JimmyG88]

I’m surprised no one has popped onto this thread to castigate us all because Diarmaid MacCulloch is gay

 

[GKC]

I’m surprised no one has popped onto this thread to castigate us all because Diarmaid MacCulloch is gay

It happens.