Chapter 17-18 Flashcards
Elizabeth’s character compared to Mary’s
Elizabeth acceded to the throne at the age of 25, significantly younger than Mary had been at her accession. There were, however, considerable differences in character and experience between the two. Elizabeth was considerably better educated, had a much shrewder grasp of political processes in their widest sense and was, for the most part, a shrewder judge of character than her half-sister. She had also learned much from her personal and political experiences, including a brief and tempestuous relationship with Thomas Seymour, and what may have been her treasonable implication in Wyatt’s Rebellion.
Elizabeth had no desire to involve herself in the details of government in the manner of her grandfather, Henry VIl. However, she took an informed interest in decision-making processes. Most importantly, she was determined to preserve the prerogative powers of the Crown, which meant that she insisted on taking the most important decisions.
Example of Elizabeth’s political skill
Elizabeth showed the development of her political skills as a result of each of these developments. Her succinct dismissal of the executed Thomas Seymour as a man of much wit but little judgement showed that she had learnt from the temporary disgrace of their relationship. Her clear-headedness under interrogation and marking a letter to her half-sister Queen Mary with diagonal lines so that it couldn’t be doctored were remarkable for someone who was aged only 20.
Initial aims on accession
On coming to the throne she had a number of key short-term aims:
• to consolidate her position
• to settle religious issues
• to pursue a peaceful settlement with the French.
Events immediately after Mary’s death
Queen Mary died in the early hours of 17 November 1558. Within a few hours, Sir William Cecil had ridden the 16 miles north to Hatfield to tell the Princess Elizabeth that the long-awaited accession had arrived. Mary
‘ councillors were only too well aware that Elizabeth did not share their religious views; many of them guessed that their political careers were over.
However, they made no attempt to interfere with the lawful succession as defined by Henry VIII. In any case, Mary had recognised Elizabeth as her successor and her husband Philip of Spain had signified his recognition of Elizabeths right of succession when he sent his envoy, the Count of Feria, to see Elizabeth a month before Mary’s death.
In what ways was it a difficult succession?
England had suffered a series of bad harvests, hence food was scarce and expensive.
Moreover, the country had suffered grievously from the ravages of a flu epidemic which had brought about the highest rate of mortality since the Black Death over two centuries previously. The political and religious Givations were delicate. England had fought a disastrous war against France which had resulted in the loss of Calais. The question of the queen’s marriage had become the subject of endless speculation. Finally, it was evident that there would be changes to the Catholic faith, as re-established by Queen Mary.
Key features to Elizabeth’s consolidation of power (5)
• Her path to power was eased by the acceptance of her succession by Mary’s key councillors. On the morning of 17 November Nicholas Heath, Mary’s Lord Chancellor and Archbishop of York, announced Mary’s death to Parliament and proclaimed Elizabeth’s succession. Legally he had no right to do so; Mary’s death should, in law, have brought about the immediate dissolution of Parliament. Politically, however, it was a significant move because it showed that the political elite of the nation collectively assented to Elizabeths accession. Within a couple of days, nine of Mary’s councilors rode to Hatfield to assure Elizabeth of their loyalty. There would therefore be no attempt to deny Elizabeth’s succession by devout Catholics who had never accepted the validity of her father’s marriage to Anne Boleyn.
• William Cecil was appointed principal secretary. Their political partnership would last for almost 40 years. Elizabeth also made some household appointments. At this stage, however, she did not announce any further appointments. It certainly made political sense for her to keep Mary’s councillors guessing about her intentions and speculating about their chances of retaining some measure of royal favour.
Elizabeth showed herself familiar with the customs associated with monarchs who had newly acceded to the throne by taking herself to the Tower, from which she emerged on several occasions to show herself to her new subjects and to benefit from pageants which were organised on her behalf by the City of London.
• Elizabeth also proceeded quickly (within two months) to her coronation.
On the basis of astrological advice, the chosen date was 15 lanuary.
Elizabeth gained some measure of international confirmation. The Spanish ambassador, the Count of Feria, had already visited Elizabeth several days before Mary’s death and after her accession tried to broker a marriage alliance between Elizabeth and Philip II. Nothing came of that, but it did demonstrate that Philip was unwilling to do anything to disrupt the smoothness of Elizabeth’s succession.
Church situation before settlement
One of the major priorities of the new Elizabethan regime was to decide on the form of religion the country would experience. There were two key aspects to this: the legal status of the Church and the liturgical books to be used in church services.
The legal status of the Church had not been altered with the death of Queen Mary. Until the law could be changed, the English Church remained part of the Catholic Church of Rome. There was never any doubt that this relationship would be severed and that the Church of England would be reinstated as an established (or State) Church with the monarch at its head.
Speculation about religious settlement
What was in doubt was the nature of that established Church. Would it be:
° essentially an Anglo-Catholic Church, in other words a Church whose doctrines and practices remained essentially Catholic even though it had rejected papal supremacy?
-an apparently moderate Protestant Church similar to that implied by tho
Act of Uniformity of 1549?
- A more radically evangelical Church as implied by the Act of Uniformity of 1552
Overview of early religious reforms
158 Elizabethan settlement essentially embraced to Acts of Parliament (the Act of Supremacy and and the Act of Uniformity). the issue of a set of rogal injunctions to enforce the Acts and, to meet liturgical needs the publication of a new Book of common Prayer. In addition, although not part of the original settlement, the Thirty-Nine Artides of Religion were introduced in 1563.
Act of Supremacy, 1559
The Act restored in law the royal supremacy in the Church, which had been Established under Henry VIll and then removed under Queen Mary. est able papal supremacy: which had been restored by statute law under Queen Mary, was rejected.
.The Reformation legislation of Henry VIII’s reign was restored.
• The heresy law revived under Mary was repealed.
: The powers of royal visitation of the Church, as enjoyed by Henry VIl, were revived. This allowed the Crown to appoint commissioners to ‘visit, reforn. order, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, and abuses. (This gave huge amounts of potential power to the commissioners, not least because it did not define the “heresies’ against which they might take action.)
The Act described the queen as ‘supreme governor’ rather than as ‘supreme head’ of the Church of England as her father had been. (This has been interpreted in a number of ways: as a concession to Catholic opinion, as a reflection of contemporary misogynistic attitudes towards women derived from the teachings of St Paul and as a reflection of the assumption that only God could be head of the Church.)
•An oath of supremacy was to be taken by clergymen and church officials: there were penalties for refusing to do so. (Most of the Marian bishops felt unable to take the oath of supremacy and were deprived of their posts.)
The Act therefore restored the legal position of the Crown in relation to the Church which had been first established in the reign of Henry VIII. It gave legislative authority for the Crown to act in matters relating to the Church
How many clergymen lost their posts as a result of the Act of Supremacy?
Because of the disappearance of most of the relevant records, it is impossible to estimate how many parish clergymen were deprived of their offices. One estimate puts the number at 2000 - about a quarter of the total. This is almost certainly an overestimate. The visitors empowered to administer the oath under the terms of the Act may well have been reluctant to deprive too many clergy because of the difficulty of replacing them. Furthermore, the most important surviving piece of direct evidence, the Act Book of the Visitors in the Province of York, seems to indicate that the visitors were only really interested in the more important members of the clergy - bishops, deans, cathedral canons - and appeared not to be too bothered about ordinary parish clergy.
The Act of Uniformity
This Act specified the use of a single Book of Common Prayer, which was a modified version of the second and strongly Protestant book that Cranmer had introduced in 1552. The two modifications were that:
• variations in Eucharistic belief were possible in that both the 1549 wording (The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee…), which even the conservative Bishop Gardiner felt able to accept at the time, and the 1552 wording derived from the beliefs of the Swiss reformer Zwingli (Take and eat this in remembrance..:) were permitted the -Black Rubric, which had been included in the 1552 prayer book to explain away the practice of kneeling at the administration of the Eucharist,
was omitted.
The Act also specified that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof’ should be those that were in place during the second year of the reign of Edward VI, in other words before the passing of the Act of Uniformity of 1549, which was passed during the third year of the reign. This would subsequently become an issue of contention. Many returning Protestant exiles, including some of the new bishops appointed by Elizabeth, simply assumed that this dating was in error and did not expect the clause to be enforced, particularly in relation to the dress of clergymen. This would cause problems because many Calvinist dergy saw the ornaments’ as ‘Popish and therefore objected strongly to them.
The royal injunctions, 1559
These were a set of instructions about the conduct of church services and government of the Church issued in the queen’s name as supreme governor. On hree previous occasions (1536, 1538 and 1547), royal injunctions had been used br the Crown as a mechanism for imposing its will in relation to church practices.
The first injunction made clear their Protestant character. It emphasised the suppression of superstition (i.e. Catholic practices) and the need to plant true religion to the extirpation of all hypocrisy, enormities, and abuses?
These injunctions emphasised that the Eucharist be administered at a simple communion table rather than at the altar, which was a clear signal that religious practice should move in the direction of reform. They called for the removal from the churches of things superstitious? Such traditional Catholic practices as pilgrimages and the use of candles were described as ‘works devised by man’s fantasies. In other words, the injunctions, like those of 1547, were drafted in a way which intended that they were to be an attack on traditional Catholic practices.
In addition, parish churches were required to purchase an English Bible, reasserting the 1538 injunctions, and a copy of Erasmus’s Paraphrases, as previously required in 1547. Moreover, the visitors nominated by Cecil to enforce the injunctions were strongly Protestant. On the other hand, the injunctions reflected some of Elizabeth’s personal idiosyncrasies. For example, her disapproval of clerical marriage was signalled by the fact that prospective wives of clergy had to produce a certificate signed by two justices of the peace signifying their fitness for such a role. Also typical of the queen herself was the desire to persuade people to forbear all vain and contentious disputations in matters of religion.
Significance of the settlement
The significance of the settlement
There has been much debate among historians about the settlement. For many years the dominant interpretation was that put forward in 1950 by John Neale.
He argued that the queen faced pressure from radical clergymen, as well as from their allies in the House of Commons, the so-called Puritan Choir” The queen had to back down and accept a much more Protestant prayer book and settlement than she had really wanted.
The challenge to Neale’s interpretation came from three American historians.
• William Haugaard argued in Elizabeth and the English Reformation
(1968) that Elizabeth saw the settlement as final, rather than, as Neale had suggested, a precursor to further reform. Many of the subsequent religious controversies of Elizabeth’s reign therefore become easily explicable in this light.
• Winthrop Hudson in The Cambridge Connection and the Religious
Settlement of 1559 (1980) argued that Elizabeth and her ministers always intended that the settlement should be firmly Protestant and that there was never any serious intention to restore the first Edwardian prayer book, but that appearances to the contrary had to be maintained, mainly to keep support in the conservative House of Lords.
Norman Jones in Faith by Statute (1982) argued that Elizabeth and her ministers wanted a complete religious settlement from the start. The political opposition they faced came not from the Puritan Choir but the Catholic bishops and conservative peers in the House of Lords. Though the bishops and conservative peers grudgingly accepted the restoration of the royal supremacy, they provided much more opposition to the uniformity bill which was only passed in the Lords by three votes.
Foreign policy actions
The Treaty of Câteau-Cambrésis, 1559
Intervention in Scotland
Intervention in France
The Treaty of Câteau-Cambrésis, 1559
When Elizabeth came to the throne, England was in conflict with France. Not only had this war gone very badly for England with the loss of Calais, it had also seriously weakened the Crown’s finances. Elizabeth wanted to extricate England from this war and, fortunately, the financial state of both France and Spain meant that neither Philip II nor Henry II of France had the stomach to continue the fight. A peace treaty was concluded at Câteau-Cambrésis in April 1559, in which England and France also reached an agreement over the vexed issue of Calais.
France would retain Calais for eight years, after which time Calais would be restored to English control provided England had kept the peace in the meantime. If France failed to return Calais, they agreed to pay 500,000 crowns (€125,000) to England.
Situation with Scotland before intervention and considerations
Further problems emerged after the death in June 1559 of Henry II of France following an accident in a jousting match. Henry II was succeeded by his eldest son Francis II, whose wife was Mary, Queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s cousin and the main Catholic claimant to the English throne. Francis’s accession also brought the strongly Catholic Guise faction to power in France. The Guises sought once again to use Scotland as an instrument of French policy.
French troops were sent to garrison major Scottish fortresses, much to the alarm of John Knox, the radical Calvinist who was the leader of the Scottish Reformation, and his political allies, the Lords of the Congregation, who were seeking power in Edinburgh. This led to conflict, with the Lords of the Congregation requesting assistance from their fellow Protestants south of the border.
Elizabeth was cautious about interfering in the domestic affairs of another nation in which subjects were rebelling against sovereign authority and was reluctant to intervene in Scotland. She loathed Knox, who had written against the monstrous regiment of women. Cecil, on the other hand, strongly supported intervention. He sympathised with the religious predicament of Scottish Protestants and knew that England would be more secure without a French force north of the border. However, he also sought the removal of Mary, Queen of Scots, which would weaken her influence as a potential Catholic claimant to the English throne, and wanted to incorporate Scotland within a wider ‘imperial’ British State, which he considered necessary for the survival of Protestant England. This was admittedly a minority position on the Council, in which he was even opposed by his normal ally and brother-in-law Sir Nicholas Bacon.
Cecil persuaded Elizabeth to intervene by playing on her insecurity. He pointed to the action of Francis and Mary in using the English royal coat of arms on their own heraldic device. He even suggested his own resignation if Elizabeth failed to support him. The process of intervention in Scotland, therefore, is a dear illustration of the way in which decision-making in foreign policy could be influenced both by religious considerations and a key individual.
