M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I was wondering, does anyone know what Queen Elizabeths relationship with the Catholic Church and the Catholic Layity was during her reign as queen was? Thanks and God bless.
- Status
Z
Zooey
Guest
It was terrible…Her reign saw the execution of many, many Catholics, & others managed to flee the country to safety.
A lot of people don’t realize how bad it really was, I think…
It is not clear to me whether she personally hated Catholics, or if she was acting from a political point of view. After all, her father had divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Elizabeth’s mother (Anne Boleyn). She may have feared that with too many Catholics around, that someone might raise the subject of whether she really had any right to the throne.
Elizabeth was, IMHO, an *awful *person…
A lot of people don’t realize how bad it really was, I think…
It is not clear to me whether she personally hated Catholics, or if she was acting from a political point of view. After all, her father had divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Elizabeth’s mother (Anne Boleyn). She may have feared that with too many Catholics around, that someone might raise the subject of whether she really had any right to the throne.
Elizabeth was, IMHO, an *awful *person…
L
LilyM
Guest
In all fairness, Elizabeth initially appears to have been reasonably well-disposed towards English Catholics. Surprisingly so considering how awful her sister Mary (Bloody Mary) had been to those who weren’t Catholic in her own reign.
And the Catholics did much more than raise the issue of her right to the throne. The Pope of the time actually dispensed all the English Catholic lords from the vows of loyalty they had made to Elizabeth at her coronation, and actively encouraged those who were prepared to overthrow and assassinate her :bigyikes: And there were a number of such attempts made.
So her suspicion and harshness was not entirely unjustified. When I think of how horrible her early life must’ve been I have a sneaking admiration for her strength and survival skills, although hardly unqualified.
It’s hard to look at how reluctant she was to execute Mary Queen of Scots, for example, in spite of the grave danger she faced from Mary, and not have a sneaking sympathy for her. Old Henry would’ve killed Mary long before.
And the Catholics did much more than raise the issue of her right to the throne. The Pope of the time actually dispensed all the English Catholic lords from the vows of loyalty they had made to Elizabeth at her coronation, and actively encouraged those who were prepared to overthrow and assassinate her :bigyikes: And there were a number of such attempts made.
So her suspicion and harshness was not entirely unjustified. When I think of how horrible her early life must’ve been I have a sneaking admiration for her strength and survival skills, although hardly unqualified.
It’s hard to look at how reluctant she was to execute Mary Queen of Scots, for example, in spite of the grave danger she faced from Mary, and not have a sneaking sympathy for her. Old Henry would’ve killed Mary long before.
C
catsrus
Guest
Queen Elizabeth I is one of my favorite historical people of which to read.
From all I’ve read over the years, I do not think her actions towards Catholics to be more than politics. Protecting her throne against the plots and machinations of Mary Queen of Scots (Catholic) was her main concern.
I find Elizabeth to be a most complex and fascinating character.
From all I’ve read over the years, I do not think her actions towards Catholics to be more than politics. Protecting her throne against the plots and machinations of Mary Queen of Scots (Catholic) was her main concern.
I find Elizabeth to be a most complex and fascinating character.
G
gadfly
Guest
I have to agree with those who compare, favorably, Elizabeth with her half-sister Mary. Mary killed Protestants, men, women and children, and lots of them. Elizabeth killed a few Catholics for being Catholic, but mostly for being traitors. She tolerated loyal Catholics, though she allowed the law to tax them mercilessly. As one writer reminded us, the pope didn’t help matters by meddling in England’s politics. As time went on she had more problems with the Puritans!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Actually, under Queen Mary Tudor there were (sadly) about 250 Protestants who were killed.
Under Elizabeth I, there were probably closer to 800 killed throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. Of course, Elizabeth’s reign was longer.
I admire Elizabeth as a Queen who certainly knew how to pick her conselors. Mary Queen of Scots, OTOH, was handicapped by having a very poor ‘pool’ from which to chose, as well as not being particularly suited to queenship on many counts.
Traitors? Yes, that was an early example of how words can be twisted. Few if any of those killed by Elizabeth were ‘traitors’; most expressed approbation of her queenship, and were perfectly ready to take the Oath to her as queen but not as ‘head of the church’. The so-called ‘Catholic’ plots of Norfolk, and Babbington, were mostly drummed up by Walsingham, who used counteragents, faked ciphers, and faked correspondance in an effort to get Elizabeth to stamp out Catholics. Why? Because Walsingham, Cecil, et. al. liked power. If by any chance there was a revolution/reformation/tolerance so that Catholics would be able to function fully as citizens, the ‘balance of power’ could conceivably shift. Cecil had barely made it through Mary’s reign even though he turned his coat very quickly, was assiduous in attending Masses under her, and flew very low. Considering that only Elizabeth’s life lay between him and the ‘next’ ruler–who would have been Catholic–either Mary QOS, or possibly Philip of Spain had he pressed for war, or even Catherine Grey, Elizabeth’s heiress presumptive until she managed to louse up by secretly marrying–and losing the documentation and witnesses–and producing thus ‘illegitimate’ children–or Norfolk himself who was one of the premier male relatives–Cecil would have been quite anxious to see Elizabeth do as much as possible to get rid of as many Catholics as possible.
As for the pope meddling–well, England HAD been made a fief of Rome way back in the 13th century under King John, you know.
Also, at least half of England’s population–and probably closer to 2/3 when you factor in Ireland–was Catholic at the start of Elizabeth’s reign. And saw the Pope as head of the church. Weren’t they entitled to know what the Vicar of Christ had to say? Didn’t the Pope have a right to instruct his flock, wherever they might liv?
Under Elizabeth I, there were probably closer to 800 killed throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. Of course, Elizabeth’s reign was longer.
I admire Elizabeth as a Queen who certainly knew how to pick her conselors. Mary Queen of Scots, OTOH, was handicapped by having a very poor ‘pool’ from which to chose, as well as not being particularly suited to queenship on many counts.
Traitors? Yes, that was an early example of how words can be twisted. Few if any of those killed by Elizabeth were ‘traitors’; most expressed approbation of her queenship, and were perfectly ready to take the Oath to her as queen but not as ‘head of the church’. The so-called ‘Catholic’ plots of Norfolk, and Babbington, were mostly drummed up by Walsingham, who used counteragents, faked ciphers, and faked correspondance in an effort to get Elizabeth to stamp out Catholics. Why? Because Walsingham, Cecil, et. al. liked power. If by any chance there was a revolution/reformation/tolerance so that Catholics would be able to function fully as citizens, the ‘balance of power’ could conceivably shift. Cecil had barely made it through Mary’s reign even though he turned his coat very quickly, was assiduous in attending Masses under her, and flew very low. Considering that only Elizabeth’s life lay between him and the ‘next’ ruler–who would have been Catholic–either Mary QOS, or possibly Philip of Spain had he pressed for war, or even Catherine Grey, Elizabeth’s heiress presumptive until she managed to louse up by secretly marrying–and losing the documentation and witnesses–and producing thus ‘illegitimate’ children–or Norfolk himself who was one of the premier male relatives–Cecil would have been quite anxious to see Elizabeth do as much as possible to get rid of as many Catholics as possible.
As for the pope meddling–well, England HAD been made a fief of Rome way back in the 13th century under King John, you know.
Also, at least half of England’s population–and probably closer to 2/3 when you factor in Ireland–was Catholic at the start of Elizabeth’s reign. And saw the Pope as head of the church. Weren’t they entitled to know what the Vicar of Christ had to say? Didn’t the Pope have a right to instruct his flock, wherever they might liv?
G
gadfly
Guest
For historians, as for everyone else, hindsight is always 20/20.
It’s easy for us in the 21st century to knock the English government of the 16th, but we need to recall the country was seriously threatened by insurrection by its own citizens, and by invasion by Spain and its allies. I certainly realize many Catholics, especially clerics from abroad, were imprisoned, tortured, and hideously executed during the reign of Elizabeth. But very few were burned at the stake just because they professed a different faith. Mary, the Catholic, had no hesitation to condemn dissenters to this ghastly fate.
And some may have been, or thought to be, traitors, bent on following the pope’s expressed will to depose their queen. That’s treason.
As a musician, I am aware of William Byrd, Thomas Tallis and others, who were known publicly, certainly by the queen, as “stiff Catholics”. She looked the other way, and allowed them their freedom (with the usual penalties), knowing they meant the realm no real harm. She didn’t consider simply professing the Catholic faith treason. In actual fact, Elizabeth was remarkably tolerant, seldom enforcing strict conformity on ANY of her subjects. Some English families managed to keep to the Catholic faith right up to the present.
We have to be honest in assessing the events of Elizabeth’s reign in terms of religion. The Catholic Church was obviously in need of reform, and Mary made some progress to be sure. But her measures turned a lot of fence-sitters against the Church and into the arms of the Protestants.
It’s easy for us in the 21st century to knock the English government of the 16th, but we need to recall the country was seriously threatened by insurrection by its own citizens, and by invasion by Spain and its allies. I certainly realize many Catholics, especially clerics from abroad, were imprisoned, tortured, and hideously executed during the reign of Elizabeth. But very few were burned at the stake just because they professed a different faith. Mary, the Catholic, had no hesitation to condemn dissenters to this ghastly fate.
And some may have been, or thought to be, traitors, bent on following the pope’s expressed will to depose their queen. That’s treason.
As a musician, I am aware of William Byrd, Thomas Tallis and others, who were known publicly, certainly by the queen, as “stiff Catholics”. She looked the other way, and allowed them their freedom (with the usual penalties), knowing they meant the realm no real harm. She didn’t consider simply professing the Catholic faith treason. In actual fact, Elizabeth was remarkably tolerant, seldom enforcing strict conformity on ANY of her subjects. Some English families managed to keep to the Catholic faith right up to the present.
We have to be honest in assessing the events of Elizabeth’s reign in terms of religion. The Catholic Church was obviously in need of reform, and Mary made some progress to be sure. But her measures turned a lot of fence-sitters against the Church and into the arms of the Protestants.
- Status