The Elizabethan Religious Settlement

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement was a collection of laws and decisions concerning religious practices introduced between 1558-63 CE by Elizabeth I of England (r. The settlement continued the English Reformation which had begun during the reign of her father, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509-1547 CE) whereby the Protestant Church of England split from the Catholic Church led by the Pope in Rome. There was opposition to the moderate features of the Settlement from both radical Catholics and radical Protestants. In addition, the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth for heresy in 1570 CE. Nevertheless, many of the features of the Settlement such as replacing altars with communion tables, using English in services, and banning traditional mass services, remained in place over the following centuries and their effects can still be seen on today's Anglican Church.

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement was composed of the following principal elements:

  • The Act of Supremacy - established Elizabeth as head of the Church of England.
  • The Act of Uniformity - set out the appearance of churches and services, banned mass services.
  • The Royal Injunctions - 57 regulations on Church matters, e.g.: preachers required a license and pilgrimages were banned.
  • The Book of Common Prayer - a new moderate blend of earlier prayer books to be used in church services.
  • The Thirty-Nine Articles - an attempt to define English Protestantism.

Attitudes to Religion

Henry VIII had started the English Reformation which split the Church in England from Catholic Rome. The Church of England was then moved even closer towards full Protestantism under Henry's successor, his son Edward VI of England (r. 1547-1553 CE). The next sovereign was Catholic Mary I of England (r. 1553-1558 CE), and she reversed the Reformation. 'Bloody Mary's' brief reign was ended by cancer, and her half-sister Elizabeth took the throne in 1558 CE. Elizabeth then set about returning the Church of England to its reformed state as it had been under Edward VI or, if possible, not quite as radical. Elizabeth was seemingly a moderate in religious views and she wished above all to avoid the bloody scenes of executed martyrs that her predecessor had presided over. As the queen put it, she would "open windows into no man's soul" (Woodward, 171).

Elizabeth's cautious reforms resulted in 'a Church that was Protestant in doctrine, Catholic in appearance'.

The queen's precise personal views on religion were difficult to determine. Elizabeth's coronation gives a clue to her middle-of-the-road position when, in Westminster Abbey, the mass was permitted but the newly crowned queen left before the elevation of the host (when the communion bread, now transformed into the body of Jesus Christ, is held up by the priest). It seemed that out of sight was out of mind, and this principle would apply to practising Christians of both sides in the debate. While many people were either pro-Catholic or pro-Protestant, it is likely that many more were attracted to elements from both sides such as, for example, admiring the beautiful ornamentation of a gold crucifix yet favouring the use of English in services. Elizabeth herself was happy enough to have such quintessential Catholic elements as candles and a crucifix in her own private chapel.

One thing Elizabeth did insist upon was to reinstate herself as head of the Church. This would help secure her throne in political terms, too. Divisions in religion could so easily lead to a damaging civil war. There were obstacles, notably the presence of many Catholic bishops who had been appointed by Mary and many catholic-minded nobles in the government. The north of England remained conservative in religious matters and England's three closest neighbours (Scotland, France, and Spain) were all Catholic states. Consequently, Elizabeth's reforms would have to be introduced with care.

The Act of Supremacy

The queen's reassertion of control over religious matters was achieved via the April 1559 CE Act of Supremacy, once more closing the door on the Pope. Elizabeth had taken the decision to arrest any Catholic bishops that did not accept her authority as sovereign over them. Two bishops were sent to the Tower of London as a consequence. This pressure meant that the Act was passed by Parliament but only by the slightest of majorities. The queen had compromised a little on the wording of the Supremacy Act, calling herself the 'Supreme Governor' of the Church instead of the 'Supreme Head', thus making her more acceptable to Protestants who disliked the idea of a woman in that position. The queen was determined to see the act enforced and sent inspectors around the parishes for that purpose. Anyone suspected of not recognising Elizabeth as head of the Church would now find themselves before a new court, the Court of High Commission. Unlike in other Protestant states, the old Catholic structure of the Church below the sovereign was maintained with the bishops organised in a hierarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury remained at the top, the Archbishop of York was number two, and the monarch appointed the bishops and archbishops. It was a good start but finding the balance between radicals on either side of the religious debate was going to be more difficult than mere wordplay.

Love History?

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

The Act of Uniformity

The next step followed quick on the heels of the first and was the May 1559 CE Act of Uniformity. This act stipulated what the interior of churches should look like. Essentially, the act returned churches to their appearance in 1549 CE. One of the most visible differences from traditional Catholic churches was the replacement of the altar with a communion table. Symbolic of the general compromises going on, priests could place a crucifix and candles on the table. Other Catholic traditions which were maintained included making the sign of the cross during a baptism and priests wearing traditional vestments. As the historian D. Starkey notes, Elizabeth's cautious reforms resulted in "a Church that was Protestant in doctrine, Catholic in appearance" (314). A French ambassador, writing in 1597 CE, confirms this view in his description of a typical English Church service:

As for the manner of their service in church and their prayers, except that they say them in the English tongue, one can still recognise a great part of the Mass, which they have limited only in what concerns individual communion. They sing the psalms in English, and at certain hours of the day they use organs and music. The priests wear the hood and surplice. it seems, apart from the absence of images, that there is little difference between their ceremonies and those of the Church of Rome.

(Ferriby, 158)

Two other important features of the Act of Uniformity were, first, church attendance was made compulsory. Failure to attend service resulted in a small fine (which was then given to the poor). The fine was one shilling, then about one day's labour for a skilled worker, but few were collected in practice. Secondly, attendance of a Catholic mass was forbidden, those found guilty of this offence received a large fine. A priest found guilty of performing a mass could face the death penalty.

The Royal Injunctions

The Royal Injunctions of July 1559 CE set out a further 57 regulations for the Church of England to follow. Many of these instructions concerned preachers who now had to have a license issued by a bishop and who were obliged to hold at least one service each month or lose that license. Every church had to have a Bible in English available to its congregation, no further altars were to be destroyed, and pilgrimages were banned.

1559 CE Book of Common Prayer

Elizabeth had to also concede to the radical Protestants and so she introduced a new Book of Common Prayer in 1559 CE which was not quite as radical as Thomas Cranmer's 1552 CE version but more so than the more moderate 1549 CE version. This new amalgamated version, like its predecessors, set out how church services should be conducted and was itself to be used in those services. Crucially, the Prayer Book dealt with the bread and wine of the communion service. Instead of treating these objects as being transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ when blessed by a Catholic priest, the Protestant preacher merely encouraged the believer to take them as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice. The specific words were:

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, and take, and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, feed on him in thine heart by faith and thanksgiving.

(Ferriby, 160)

The 39 Articles

The Thirty-nine Articles of 1563 CE (made law in 1571 CE) were the final part of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. Essentially, they covered all the matters not yet set out in previous legislation and aimed to definitively establish what was meant by the English version of Protestantism, otherwise known as Anglicism. This was by no means a simple task as, in these early stages, nobody quite knew what Anglicism precisely was except that it was not Catholicism or extreme Protestantism but somewhere in-between. Article 34, for example, stated the following:

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times and men's manners, so [provided] that nothing be ordained against God's Word…Every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church…

(Miller, 122).

Reception

The reforms may have been mild but they were enough for the Pope to eventually excommunicate the queen for heresy in February 1570 CE. Neither France nor Spain reacted to the changes, perhaps believing that they were as temporary as they hoped Elizabeth's reign would be. Hard-line Protestants and Catholics in England were both dissatisfied with Elizabeth's pragmatic stance as she went for a more middle-of-the-road approach which appealed to the largely indifferent majority of her subjects. There was a turnover of officials as Elizabeth removed remaining pro-Catholic bishops and, under the 1559 CE Act of Exchange, confiscated their estates (or threatened to if they did not toe the line). Taxes that had been paid to Rome were, as before Mary's reign, redirected to the English government. Although in practical terms, extremist worshippers were largely permitted to pursue their beliefs without interference, some 400 priests did resign as a consequence of the Settlement. It is also true that many preachers simply carried on as before hoping not to be noticed by the authorities - who in some cases were sympathetic at a local level. Despite these reactions, and considering the changes made and the violence witnessed in some other European countries, England had overcome a difficult and potentially dangerous hurdle, even if there would be more to come in the following decades as religious matters affected foreign policy and vice-versa.


Puritan and Catholic Challenges to Elizabethan Religious Settlement

Challenges to Elizabethan Religious Settlement came from several places. As the settlement was middle ground it did not satisfy more ardent supporters of some religious movements. In particular there was opposition from Puritan and Roman Catholic worshippers. The Religious Settlement offended some members of the nobility, leading to the Northern Rebellion. It also increased tension with foreign powers, many of whom were Catholic and wary of any state that became protestant.

The Puritan Challenge

Puritans believed that worship and prayer should be plain and simple. Churches and the ministers ought to reflect the work the Jesus did in helping the poor. Instead of being full of expensive statues, paintings and elaborate religious icons and items, the church should be plain, simple and focused upon piety and prayer. Worship should reflect the suffering of Jesus and his teachings. This should include periods of fasting, alms giving and suchlike.

The Religious Settlement did not enforce the Puritan view of church layout, decorations or the dress of preachers. The main areas that puritans disagreed with were the allowance of crucifixes and vestments.

The crucifix shows Jesus dying on the cross. For many it is an important religious symbol. For puritans, it was an icon and as such ought not to be permitted. Elizabeth wanted the crucifix to be included in all churches. It would go some way towards getting Roman Catholics to support her settlement. However, Puritan bishops threatened to resign if the crucifix was imposed. Due to the number of bishops and the lack of suitable replacements, Elizabeth had to remove the imposition of the crucifix from the Settlement.

Vestments are special clothes worn by priests. They signify different types of mass and are illustrative of gods will and ongoing work. Puritans did not believe that a priest should wear vestments. They thought that they were too elaborate. Priests were preachers, not gods appointee. Vestments were therefore a way of making an ordinary person appear to be more important than others. It was a way of turning the priest into a form of idol. The settlement had disagreed with that. It insisted on vestments as the priest was, to most worshippers, the vessel through which water and wine was turned into Holy Communion during the service. The vestments made the importance of this role very clear.

Puritans simply refused to comply with the Religious Settlement. They refused to wear vestments. By 1566 it was so clear that the Puritans were refusing to comply that exhibitions were held to show priests and bishops what type of vestment were permitted: not all are really elaborate. Many puritans attending the exhibition refused to use any of the vestments. They were removed from their posts.

Roman Catholic Challenge to the Religious Settlement

Across Europe the Papacy was engaged in persecuting protestants and was in the midst of a counter-reformation. It was clear that the Pope and Roman Catholic Church leadership would not sanction anything other than full Roman Catholicism. Despite this, little of note happened in terms of open opposition to the Religious Settlement in the first few years. The Settlement had enabled Catholics some methods of staying true to their own ways and evidence suggests that the majority complied with most of the settlement, most of the time.

The main opposition initially came from the Northern Earls. The Earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland were both Roman Catholic. They had both had a lot of power under Mary I which was greatly diminished under Elizabeth’s rule. See Society and Government in 1558 for the structure they were excluded from.

It wasn’t until 1569 that any major opposition from Roman Catholics occurred. Westmoreland and Northumberland rose up in revolt. The seized Durham Cathedral and celebrated a full Catholic mass. They then marched south. They were joined by many Catholics which suggests that there was dissatisfaction at the Settlement. However, most of the other Catholic nobles remained loyal to the Queen. The notable exception was the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Norfolk who sided with the rebels.

The rebellion was put down by the Queens army. Many of the rebels were executed in a public show of the might of the crown. This not only deterred further rebellion but also made relations between Roman Catholics and Protestants more tense.

The Catholic challenge to the Settlement was in part fuelled by the position of Mary, Queen of Scots. With a legitimate Catholic heir to the throne they had reason to believe that Catholicism would return and some were inclined to plot or continue Catholic ways based on this.

Conclusions: Challenges to the Elizabethan Settlement

The Elizabethan Settlement was designed to appease as many people as possible. It incorporated elements of services that would be acceptable to Roman Catholics whilst maintaining many of the new ideas about prayer and worship. The Settlement did work in many ways. It allowed people to practise their religion with an element of flexibility. However the plots and challenges from traditionalist Catholics and extreme puritans meant that there was a crack down on worshipping practise. The actions of a relatively small number of people and the involvement of radical puritans and Papist missionaries and Jesuits meant that the freedoms that the freedoms that were initially in place were reduced and restricted. Tolerance however was improved.

Tutor2U – The Puritan Vestment Challenge

History of Parliament – Religious Debates in Elizabethan Parliaments


The Elizabethan Religious Settlement

I am a History Teacher with a love for producing high quality and easily accessible history lessons which I have accumulated and adapted for over 20 years of my teaching career. I appreciate just how time consuming teaching now is and the difficulty of constantly producing resources for an ever changing curriculum.

Share this

pdf, 2.72 MB zip, 4.92 MB PNG, 67.17 KB PNG, 202.01 KB PNG, 62.34 KB

AQA GCSE 9-1 Elizabethan England, 1568-1603

  • The overarching aim of this and the subsequent bundle of eleven lessons is to question and explore how Elizabeth tried to assert and establish her authority in the early years of her reign.
  • The eleven lessons are therefore linked together to build up a picture of her difficulties in trying to overcome this.
  • This lesson aims to explain how Elizabeth approached the sensitive subject of religion in a calm and pragmatic fashion.
  • The first part of the lesson concentrates on the differences between Protestants and Catholics and why Elizabeth should take a different perspective on religion compared to her predecessors.
  • The second part of the lesson describes and explains the Elizabethan Settlement using a text mapping activity before students answer a GCSE question on the significance of the Settlement in the context of her reign. The lesson is also linked to video footage from the film Elizabeth.
  • The resource gives suggested teaching strategies and comes in PDF and Powerpoint format. It can be amended and changed to suit.
  • If you like this resource, please visit my shop where I have created further resources for Elizabeth as well as a full revision guide for the AQA GCSE 9-1 Elizabeth course which can be found here: https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/aqa-gcse-9-1-revision-guide-elizabethan-england-c-1568-1603-11806156
  • Any reviews will be greatly appreciated

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 25%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.


The Elizabethan Religious Settlement - History

JOHN GUY
Factor: “Elizabeth wished to avoid the iconoclasm of her brother’s reign”
Factor: “Elizabeth’s diplomacy into the Protestant camp …did much to forge the link between Protestantism and national identity”

PETER HOLMES
Factor: “self-seeking nobility and monarchy”
Factor: “the real opposition to Elizabeth (came from) the strong Catholic element in the House of Lords”
Consequence: “Even by 1603 this process (the Reformation) was hardly complete”
Consequence: (Elizabeth followed) “a more cautious religious policy than most of her advisers wanted.”

Factor: “There should be no doubt in Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism.”(Christopher Haigh)
Consequence: “The nine lay votes against the Uniformity Bill were an embarrassment, especially as two came from the Privy Council.” (Christopher Haigh)
Consequence: “If Elizabeth was a real protestant she would not have tolerated an idolatrous cross.” (Patrick Collinson)
Consequence:”Deliberate interventions led her to blunt the Protestantism of her governments original programme.” (Christopher Haigh)

Factor: “There should be no doubt in Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism, her private prayers were protestant.” (Christopher Haigh)
Consequence: Protestants exiled during Mary’s reign returned to England and captured the initiative in the Commons, forming an outspoken and influential ‘Puritan Choir’.(J.E. Neale)
Consequence:It is the strangest paradox of her reign and the supreme tribute to her greatness (J.E. Neale)
Consequence: claims that the provinces in particular remained Catholic as the Protestant religion failed to provide spiritual nourishment.(Christopher Haigh)

FACTOR: “The new monarch would have to be the partisan leader, with her feet placed firmly in the Protestant or Catholic Camp” (Michael A.R. Graves)
FACTOR: “there can be little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
CONSEQUENCE: “Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war.” (Norman L. Jones)
CONSEQUENCE: “communion service was made a little more like that of Edward’s first Prayer Book. By this compromise Elizabeth hoped to win over the Catholics” (Sinclair Aitkins)

CONSEQUENCE: It mollified the conservatives without incensing the more radical Protestants” (John Guy)
FACTOR: “Royal supremacy was less controversial than Protestant uniformity” (John Guy)
CONSEQUENCE: Calvinist’s believed Elizabeth brought “halfly reformed” policies.(Mary Crane)
FACTOR: Elizabeth was “as Protestant as Jewel, Grindal or Cox” (Norman Jones)
FACTOR: Elizabeth remained fairly conservative but the pressure of the returning Protestants, as with “Puritan Choir” influenced her religious settlement. (J.E.Neale)

FACTORS:
“A Protestant-inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go” (J.E. Neale)
“There can be little doubt about Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
“All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism” (David Starkey)

CONSEQUENCES:
“Radical Protestant representatives struggled for a more aggressive reform” (J. E. Neale)

Factor: (J.E Neale) – “it was influenced by Protestant pressure applied by Puritans returning from abroad and that Elizabeth herself favoured the conservative methods”
Factor: (Christopher Haigh) – “There can be little doubt about Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism”
Factor: (David Starkey) – “All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism”
Consequence: (Christopher Haigh) – “even by the end of the century, prolonged clerical efforts had succeeded in creating a Protestant nation, but not a nation of Protestants”
Consequence: (Peter Ackroyd) – “The injunctions were, in other words, an attempt to compose differences and to soften the acrimony and recrimination attendant on the further change in religion”

Doran:
‘The Act of Supremacy gave Elizabeth the new title of Supreme Govenor of the Church of England. Although designed to placate the Catholics, the change also pleased some Protestants’
Lockyer & O’Sullivan:
‘it was a successful hybrid’

Warren:
‘Elizabeth was not a convenient person, and no such statement (on her personal religious views) exists’

Factor
Lotherington maintains that there were no guarantees that there would be a return to Protestantism.
Factor
J.E. Neale said that she wanted a return to Henrician Catholicism without the Pope, and it was the return of exiles that made it more radical, i.e. a ‘Church of England’.
Factor
Regan sides with Jones quite a lot. He says that the Settlement does reflect quite closely Elizabeth’s own religious views.She wanted to create a church where as many believers as possible would be able to find salvation.
Consequence
N Jones argued that it was the result of a struggle between the House of Lords, the Queen, council, and the Bishops. He says the settlement was a triumph for the Queen.
Consequence
Christopher Haigh claims that the provinces in particular remained Catholic as the Protestant religion failed to provide spiritual nourishment.

FACTOR: (Pollard) “Elizabeth wanted to design a church according to her wishes.”
FACTOR: (Neale) “she wanted a return to Henrician Catholicism without the Pope, and it was the return of exiles that made it more radical, i.e. a ‘Church of England’.”
CONSEQUENCE: (Foxe – Acts and Monuments) “Pushed through parliament a protestant religious settlement against the opposition of Catholics.”
CONSEQUENCE: (Neale – Elizabeth and her parliament) “Result of a conservative Queen being forced into a more radical religious settlement by protestants in the House if Commons”
CONSEQUENCES: (Jones – In faith by statute) “Elizabeth established a religious settlement that reflected her own religious view”

Factor: Christopher Haigh “There can be little doubt about Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism, as she had been raised in the Protestant household of Catherine Parr and had been taught by John Cheke, who had reformist tendencies”
Factor: J.E.Neal: “A Protestant-inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go”.

FACTOR: “Protestant inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant” (Neale)
FACTOR: “Opposition from Catholic Bishops in House of Lords whose resistance had to be overcome” (Jones)
FACTOR:”Needed to minimise risk of revolt” (Dawson)
CONSEQUENCE: “There was little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Haigh)
CONSEQUENCE: “Elizabeth’s settlement had settled nothing” (Haigh)

Factor
“valued political peace rather than religious correctness” (Peter Holmes)
“There can be little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism (Chistopher Haigh)
“Her private prayers were protestant” (Chritopher Haigh)
Consequences:
“More cautious religious policy that most of her advisers wanted” (Peter Holmes)

Factor:
John Guy – ” Elizabeth’s diplomacy into the Protestant camp… did much to forge the link between Protestantism and national identity”
J.E Neale – ” A protestant inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go”

Consequence:
Christopher Haigh – “The nine lay votes against the Uniformity Bill were an embarrassment, especially as two came from the Privy Council”
Norman L Jones – ” Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war”
J. E Neale – ” It is the strangest paradox of her reign and the supreme tributes to her greatness”

HOLMES:
1. “The religious settlement of Elizabeth was the biggest impact on Englands religion since Martin Luther in 1519”
2. “The precise nature of Elizabeth’s religious opinions is much debated.”
3. “[Elizabeth] valued political peace rather than religious correctness.”
4. “Elizabeth attended chapel every day because it was her religious duty, rather than because she was devout like Philp or Mary.”


How successful was the Elizabethan settlement within the context of the period 1558-1603?

The introduction of this essay needs to clearly define the settlement as both the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, and including the 39 Articles of Faith. A good answer should then include some historiography - i.e. what other Historians have argued. In this case, Hill argues that the settlement was moderate to appease both sides. Context should be given on the precarious situation in Europe, with religious conflict sweeping the continent. The intro should signpost the essay structure as follows: the settlement prevented wide scale uprising, and so can be judged as at least partially successful. However, the continued presence of Catholics and plots against the monarch, as well as existence of Puritans shows that the settlement was not entirely successful at creating uniform faith. Having laid out the argument, the body of the essay should follow the path of exploring three groups in society. Firstly, the student should explore how the settlement was received among the ordinary population, drawing on both Haigh and Anna Whitelock's arguments. It can be argued the settlement was successful among ordinary people as there were no widespread religious inspired revolts, unlike under HVIII (drawing comparisons across the Tudor period). This was partially due to ambiguous doctrinal changes which did not greatly affect everyday life, among other factors. Then the student should consider the other side of the argument, and demonstrate that the settlement was unsuccessful among the catholic elite, evidenced by the Northern Rebellion in 1569. Continued plots from Catholic nobles throughout the period threatened Elizabeth's reign. The student should then argue that resistance occurred among the Puritans, who thought that the settlement had not gone far enough towards Protestantism. To conclude, it can be argued that among the extremes, the settlement was unsuccessful as there was continued resistance throughout the period. Despite this, it was largely accepted among the ordinary population.


25 thoughts on &ldquo The Elizabethan Religious Settlement &rdquo

“Elizabeth underestimated the strength of feeling in the House of Lords. Whereas the Commons was willing to support the new queen, this was not the case in the Lords.” http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/the-religious-settlement-of-1559/

Elton has summed it up by saying that, the Elizabethan settlement “created a Church Protestant in doctrine, traditional in organisation, and subject not to a lay pope but to the queen-governor in parliament.”

JOHN GUY
Factor: “Elizabeth wished to avoid the iconoclasm of her brother’s reign”
Factor: “Elizabeth’s diplomacy into the Protestant camp …did much to forge the link between Protestantism and national identity”
PETER HOLMES
Factor: “self-seeking nobility and monarchy”
Consequence: “Even by 1603 this process (the Reformation) was hardly complete”
Consequence: (Elizabeth followed) “a more cautious religious policy than most of her advisers wanted.”

Factor: “There should be no doubt in Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism, her private prayers were protestant.” (Christopher Haigh)
Consequence: Protestants exiled during Mary’s reign returned to England and captured the initiative in the Commons, forming an outspoken and influential ‘Puritan Choir’.(J.E. Neale)
Consequence:It is the strangest paradox of her reign and the supreme tribute to her greatness (J.E. Neale)
Consequence: claims that the provinces in particular remained Catholic as the Protestant religion failed to provide spiritual nourishment.(Christopher Haigh)

FACTOR: “Royal supremacy was less controversial than Protestant uniformity” (John Guy)
CONSEQUENCE: It “mollified the conservatives without incensing the more radical Protestants” (John Guy)
FACTOR: Elizabeth remained fairly conservative but the pressure of the returning Protestants, as with “Puritan Choir” influenced her religious settlement. (J.E.Neale)
CONSEQUENCE: Calvinist’s believed Elizabeth brought “halfly reformed” policies.(Mary Crane)

FACTOR: “The new monarch would have to be the partisan leader, with her feet placed firmly in the Protestant or Catholic Camp” (Michael A.R. Graves)
FACTOR: “there can be little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
CONSEQUENCE: “Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war.” (Norman L. Jones)
CONSEQUENCE: “communion service was made a little more like that of Edward’s first Prayer Book. By this compromise Elizabeth hoped to win over the Catholics” (Sinclair Aitkins)

FACTOR: “The new monarch would have to be the partisan leader, with her feet placed firmly in the Protestant or Catholic Camp” (Michael A.R. Graves)
FACTOR: “there can be little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
CONSEQUENCE: “Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war.” (Norman L. Jones)
CONSEQUENCE: “communion service was made a little more like that of Edward’s first Prayer Book. By this compromise Elizabeth hoped to win over the Catholics” (Sinclair Aitkins)

FACTORS:
“A Protestant-inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go” (J.E. Neale)
“There can be little doubt about Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
“All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism” (David Starkey)

CONSEQUENCES:
“Radical Protestant representatives struggled for a more aggressive reform” (J. E. Neale)

FACTOR: (Pollard) “Elizabeth wanted to design a church according to her wishes.”
FACTOR: (Neale) “she wanted a return to Henrician Catholicism without the Pope, and it was the return of exiles that made it more radical, i.e. a ‘Church of England’.”
CONSEQUENCE: (Foxe – Acts and Monuments) “Pushed through parliament a protestant religious settlement against the opposition of Catholics.”
CONSEQUENCE: (Neale – Elizabeth and her parliament) “Result of a conservative Queen being forced into a more radical religious settlement by protestants in the House if Commons”
CONSEQUENCES: (Jones – In faith by statute) “Elizabeth established a religious settlement that reflected her own religious view”

Factor: (Micheal tillbrook) the issue of a set of royal injunctions to enforce the acts and,to meet the liturgical needs, the publication of new books in common prayer.

Factor:(Micheal Tillbrook) Cartwright and the presbyteries believed that a church founded of ‘superstitious or ‘popish’ principles must be spiritually flawed

Consequence: (Winthrop Hudson) there was never any serious intention to restore the first Edwardian prayer book but the appearance of the contrary had to be maintained.

Consequence:( Micheal tillbrook) rather than conform some priests servived as private chaplains the catholic members of the nobility.

FACTOR: “The new monarch would have to be the partisan leader, with her feet placed firmly in the Protestant or Catholic Camp” (Michael A.R. Graves)
FACTOR: “there can be little doubt of Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism” (Christopher Haigh)
CONSEQUENCE: “Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war.” (Norman L. Jones)
CONSEQUENCE: “communion service was made a little more like that of Edward’s first Prayer Book. By this compromise Elizabeth hoped to win over the Catholics” (Sinclair Aitkins)

Factor: “All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism” (David Starkey)
Factor: “A Protestant-inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go” (J.E. Neale)
Consequence: “If Elizabeth was a real protestant she would not have tolerated an idolatrous cross.” (Patrick Collinson)
Consequence:”Deliberate interventions led her to blunt the Protestantism of her governments original programme.” (Christopher Haigh)

Factor: “All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism” (David Starkey)
Factor: “A Protestant-inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go” (J.E. Neale)
Consequence: “If Elizabeth was a real protestant she would not have tolerated an idolatrous cross.” (Patrick Collinson)
Consequence:”Deliberate interventions led her to blunt the Protestantism of her governments original programme.” (Christopher Haigh)

Factor: “All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism’’ (Starkey)
Consequence: “Bills of Supremacy and Uniformity making up the Settlement were torn to pieces by the Marian bishops and Catholic peers, although having already passed the Commons” (Starkey)
Factor: “Elizabeth wanted to design a church according to her wishes” (Pollard)
Consequence: “Elizabeth established a religious settlement that reflected her own religious view” (Jones)

Elizabeth’s first Parliament was inaugurated on 25 January 1559.
Nicholas Bacon outlined the course to reach this goal by explaining that members were not to insult each other with terms like ‘heretic’, ‘schismatic’ or ‘Papist’. They were not going to waste time on abstract theological debates, but rather get down to the business at hand of finding concrete solutions to the problems of the day. Matters were to be debated in a respectful fashion. Extremism would not be tolerated and name-calling and mud-slinging would not move things forward. In this address, Elizabeth deliberately disassociated herself from the unpopular regime under Queen Mary I by signalling how hers would be different.

Elizabeth’s first Parliament was inaugurated on 25 January 1559.
Nicholas Bacon outlined the course to reach this goal by explaining that members were not to insult each other with terms like ‘heretic’, ‘schismatic’ or ‘Papist’. They were not going to waste time on abstract theological debates, but rather get down to the business at hand of finding concrete solutions to the problems of the day. Matters were to be debated in a respectful fashion. Extremism would not be tolerated and name-calling and mud-slinging would not move things forward. In this address, Elizabeth deliberately disassociated herself from the unpopular regime under Queen Mary I by signalling how hers would be different.

Claim: ‘All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism’ (Starkey)
Consequence: ‘Bills of Supremacy and Uniformity making up the Settlement were torn to pieces by the Marian bishops and Catholic peers, although having already passed the Commons’ (Starkey)
Factor: ‘There were no guarantees that there would be a return to Protestantism’ (Lotherington)
Consequence: ‘The provinces in particular remained Catholic as the Protestant religion failed to provide spiritual nourishment’ (Haigh )

Factor: “The negative decisions of this synod were more important than its positive results: what the Convocation [of 1563] rejected is more important than what it adopted” (Haugaard)
Consequence: “They [the puritans] launched a major attack on the shape of the Elizabethan church as it was developing under the guidance of Elizabeth and her chosen bishops” (Haugaard)
Factor: “German influence which was linked closely with ongoing diplomatic developments on the continent” (Horie)
Consequence: “some key decisions on religion were the direct result of contemporary diplomatic talks with Lutheran princes” (Horie)

Factor:
John Guy – ” Elizabeth’s diplomacy into the Protestant camp… did much to forge the link between Protestantism and national identity”
J.E Neale – ” A protestant inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go”

Consequence:
Christopher Haigh – “The nine lay votes against the Uniformity Bill were an embarrassment, especially as two came from the Privy Council”
Norman L Jones – ” Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war”
J. E Neale – ” It is the strangest paradox of her reign and the supreme tributes to her greatness”

JOHN GUY – ” ELIZABETH’S DIPLOMACY INTO THE PROTESTANT CAMP… DID MUCH TO FORGE THE LINK BETWEEN PROTESTANTISM AND NATIONAL IDENTITY.”

J.E NEALE – ” A PROTESTANT INCLINED HOUSE OF COMMONS PUSHED ELIZABETH FURTHER THAN SHE MEANT TO GO.”

NORMAN L JONES – ” ELIZABETH OBTAINED WHAT SHE SOUGHT WITHOUT EITHER ABANDONING MOST OF IT OR CAUSING A CIVIL WAR.”

CHRISTOPHER HAIGH – “THE NINE LAY VOTES AGAINST THE UNIFORMITY BILL WERE AN EMBARRASSMENT, ESPECIALLY AS TWO CAME FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL.”

NEALE: ‘Elizabeth was never a protestant in the fully reformed (or Calvinist) idiom of the Marian exiles and that she had been forced to accept a more radical religious settlement than she would have preferred
HAIGH: ‘There should be no doubt in Elizabeth’s personal Protestantism.’
GRAVES: ‘The new monarch would have to be the partisan leader, with her feet placed firmly in the protestant or catholic camp.’
GUY: ‘Royal supremacy was less controversial than Protestant uniformity.’
NEALE again: ‘A Protestant inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go.’
STARKEY: ‘All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of the reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism.’

“The wolves be coming out of Geneva and have sent their books before, full of pestilent doctrines,”-http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/the-religious-settlement-of-1559/
“Protestant inclined House of Commons pushed Elizabeth further than she meant to go,”- Neale
“Settlement was mainly Protestant, with an English Bible and denunciation of transubstantiation, it was Catholic enough to irritate hard-core Calvinists, such as Anthony Cooke.”- Norman Jones
“All the evidence of Elizabeth’s behaviour in the first months of her reign shows that she feared the power of Catholicism”- David Starkey
“Elizabeth obtained what she sought without either abandoning most of it or causing a civil war.”- Norman Jones

Factor:
Mary’s reinstatement of Catholicism meant the situation was unclear as to how many Protestants and Catholics there were throughout the country. Elizabeth decided to tolerate both, arguably, to keep as much peace as possible.

Consequence:
Many were unimpressed by this and believed there was only one true religion that everyone should follow. “… The state could never be in safety where there was toleration of two religions. For there is no enmity so great as that for religion, and they that differ in the service of god can never agree in the service of their country,” –William Cecil (one of Elizabeth’s Chief advisers)

Factor
‘the most serious problems facing Elizabeth were the dangers inherent in the diplomatic situation and the obstinate resistance of the Catholics in the Lords’ (Jones)
‘Whatever Elizabeth’s position was at the time of her first parliament, thereafter she became the arch-conservative and defender of the status quo. So the initiative for change passed to her privy council and her governing class.’ (Graves)

Consequence:
‘In a Lords’ committee, opponents of the first supremacy bill secured its alteration and, in a valiant rearguard action, they voted against each step in the enactment of a new religious order’ (Jones)

Factor:
the “Queen had tried to contain conservative opposition in the Lords, not radical pressure in the Commons” (Haigh)
Pollard stated that Elizabeth wanted to design a Church according to her wishes.
Regan held that she wanted to create a Church where as many believers as possible would be able to find salvation.

Consequence:
Lotherington maintains that there were no guarantees that there would be a return to Protestantism.


290 The Religious Settlement

Elizabeth’s England was awash with expectation – from Mary’s bishops demanding that no change be made to Mary’s church, to a wave of Protestant Marian exiles returning with visions of Geneva. How to avoid a religious warlike that soon to engulf France?

This is Rycote Chapel in Oxfordshire. It was restored in the early 20th century, but what you see would have been recognised in Elizabeth’s reignthe altar is there, but not the centre of the church, and is surrounded by the biblical texts. The focus of the church is instead the pulpit. Elizabeth herself would have sat in one of the two central pews, since she was held captive here for a while during Mary’s reign.

Download Podcast - 290 The Religious Settlement (Right Click and select Save Link As)

All this talk of churches is of course most appropriate given that we are about to talk about the Elizabethan Religious settlement. Now every famous person has quotes wrongly applied to them one of these in Elizabeth’s world is the much used ‘I shall not make windows into men’s souls’. Of course, Elizabeth did not say this, it was Francis Bacon, famous son of Nicholas Bacon, Elizabeth’s Lord Keeper, who said it of herreligious policy. And it is a phrase which has been furiously kicked against – one comment I saw recently said caustically that she made windows into men’s entrails instead. So, was Elizabeth really anxious to bring religious peace to her people – or was this just the latest swing of the dial from persecution of Protestants to persecution of Catholics.

There has been plenty of speculation about Elizabeth’s own beliefs. It has been noted that she had largely conformed during Mary’s reign, with a bit of kicking and screaming, huffing and on occasion, puffing. After she came to the throne, she continued to celebrate the mass in her chapel – though she withdrew at a specific point to avoid seeing the elevation of the host, a moment of particular disgust for Protestants. It seemed clear that she liked a bit of ceremonial – she was keen to decorate the altar in her chapel with grand candlesticks. She liked complex church music, patronising and protecting Catholic composer Thomas Tallis, and William Byrd who actually became Catholic in the 1570s. She was later to show a reluctance to agree to clerical marriage, one of the great steps forward as far as protestants were concerned. Now, in the 1950s, the historian J E Neale also made the case that Elizabeth never planned for the religious settlement that occurred – she aimed to return to the situation at the end of her father’s reign, a relatively lightly modified religion without purgatory, and with the removal of the Pope. And that what happened was that she was pushed into a protestant settlement by returning fervent Marian exiles in parliament.

And in 1558 while some of the Marian exiles were confident that Elizabeth would be a protestant champion, packed their bags and came home, others were much more cautious and stayed put in places like Geneva and Strasbourg to wait and see what unfolded. And between November 1558 and her first parliament in February 1559 Elizabeth kept her cards very close to her chest enthusiasts on both sides were required to obey the law and the law, as re-established by Mary, was catholic practice. It may also have sneaked out that Elizabeth deeply resented Knox’s blasts against monstrous women, and wasn’t keen on Calvin either. So when Jean Calvin sent Elizabeth a copy of his latest publication, she showed little interest. The attitude of both men to women was one important factor in this, but the other, just as important, was the attitude of Calvinists to royal authority. On many occasions over the next 45 years, Elizabeth will prioritise dynastic concerns over matters of religion – and Elizabeth seriously doubted the commitment of Calvinists to royal authority – indeed a doctrine of rebellion against Catholic rulers was seen as justified. Elizabeth was her father’s daughter, and firmly believed that the only possible response to a royal command was ‘yessir, 3 bags full sir’.

Jean also sent a note to Cecil at the same time by the way, saying

‘if hitherto you have been timid, you may now make up for your deficiency by the ardour of your zeal’.

This is a snide reference to Cecils failure to declare himself publicly as a Protestant and jump onto one of Pole and Mary’s bonfires in Smithfield. Thee appropriate response, I would have thought, if I were William Cecil, would have involved 4 letters and 2 fingers but these are different times and Calvin was maybe expressing the concern of many protestants – what was going to happen now?

Well, Cecil had not been idle as it happens. His aim was to bring a coherent strategy to the Queen, and his style was to consult and investigate. He commissioned a paper from a colleague, who worried about the dangers and complications. Return to the situation at the end of Henry VIII’s reign he advised, be cautious anything else is too difficult and too dangerous.

There is no doubt that Cecil’s Protestantism was much more radical than his mistresses, wherever on the spectrum you place Elizabeth. For Cecil, true religion was that as achieved by the Edwardian Church so this advice was way too cautious for him. Another paper was then produced, very probably by Cecil himself – it’s called the Device for the Alteration of Religion. It’s a useful paper to start from not only because it may well be the key to Elizabeth’s real intentions when parliament was finally convened, but because it puts religion in the wider context. Because the religious settlement, while primarily in a sense about conscience, was also about politics and diplomacy.

There are a few things of which we should remind ourselves to start with. First of all. England was still at war with France and Elizabeth made it pretty clear that she wanted Calais back or she did initially at least. By 1559 negotiations for peace had started and Elizabeth helpfully set clear parameters for her delegates by telling them that they could on the one hand conclude a treaty which saw Calais returned to England or on the other hand they could have their heads removed. It is always handy to know where you stand.

The other thing to remember is that Elizabeth might have been the rightful monarch as far as the English was concerned, but she was not as far as the Catholic church was concerned, because Elizabeth was the daughter of the Great Whore, Anne Boleyn. So, when Mary died childless, the next in line was the descendant of Henry VIII’s eldest sister, Margaret Tudor who had married James IV of Scotland, and whose granddaughter was Mary, whose surname, of course, is queen of Scots. Mary was around 16 in 1559, and married to Francis, the Dauphin of France. Lest you think this is a small thing two more items should be of interest. In 1558 Mary signed a clause which ran counter to the original marriage agreement, which had been that Scotland and France would remain separate, and if there were no children from the marriage then they’d go their separate ways. But Mary now compliantly signed a new agreement giving over her inheritance to her husband whatever happened. It’s a really rather remarkable thing – an agreement that Scotland should become part of France. The second thing to note is that this was not the matter of delicate diplomacy, of the odd suggestion or threat in meetings between French and English diplomats in wood panelled rooms. Nope, the young couple publicaly quartered the English royal arms with those of France, which is the diplomatic equivalent of a tazer.

So the Device for the Alteration of Religion presented the case and associated scenarios for a return to Protestantism in England, and it held nothing back. Cecil was clear about what could be expected from the Pope, which would be uncompromising – Cecil predicted excommunication, interdict, and that the Pope would make England ‘prey to all princes that will enter upon it’. There wasn’t much to be done about that the paper figured.

Spain was still England’s ally – but with negotiations happening now that would be unlikely to continue, but it was France Cecil focussed on in his view Henry II would fight England both as heretics and natural enemies, and it would use Scotland to do so. Meanwhile, Ireland would also be difficult to control ‘by reason of the clergy with is so addicted to Rome’.

So quite scary then, for England, and lots of threats. But there was more, baggy, much more because internally also a protestant settlement would face opposition he wrote. The Marian Bishops and Clergy he believed would fight tooth and nail but then on the other side there would be the more zealous protestants, fired up from their experiences in cities like Strasbourg and Geneva keen to see the Edwardian reformation re-instated and then enhanced completed to make England like Geneva. In fact one of Cecil’s friends was the Countess of Suffolk Catherine Willoughby, who now returned from the rather grand form of Marian exile she’d enjoyed, and had written telling Cecil to get on with it.

Cecil’s mitigation then was peace with France as soon as possible, whatever the cost – and it was quickly clear that the cost would be Calais. Nothing good would come from the Pope but in Scotland was hope. Because in Scotland there was a movement which was already struggling for the return of what Cecil defied as good religion. What Cecil envisaged was an alliance with those protestants, ‘to augment the hope of those who incline to good religion’. Now Cecil had served with his then master Somerset during the war in Scotland in the 1540s. He had seen the good and the bad of that the offer of a pan British protestant alliance had been an exciting concept. It had been an exciting concept arousing come contempt from the Scots when offered at the end of a gun. Here was a lesson Cecil had learned then – at one level, that intervention in Scotland ‘may be practised to help forward their divisions’, and keep England secure from French inspired invasion. But to keep England secure for ever, a pan British Protestant alliance was the thing but to succeed it could not again be at the end of a gun. If England intervened in Scotland, it must leave as soon as possible.

Ok, so it strikes me this isn’t really helping you very much as far as the process of the Elizabeth religious settlement is concerned, but you know, the context is important. And in terms of Elizabeth’s personal religion well, after being given a doom-laden prediction of the international threats like that, would you have gone ahead unless you had a personal commitment to it? There’s no doubt that Elizabeth liked some ceremony, and as we’ll see she was not one for zealotry but she was a fair dinkum protestant without much doubt. Her beliefs focussed on justification by faith alone, but suspicion of the Calvinistic extreme of predestination a preference for a set of readings over preaching her providential right to rule and the obligation of her subjects to reverence. For her, uniformity and removal of division was essential, including conformity to the BCP.

We are now in a situation of course where parliament had been made the route to legitimise religious change, and it is to Elizabeth’s first parliament therefore that we should go. While all the prep was going on a small group was set to work to develop a plan for the new Church of England, to be put to the queen before being used to create legislation for said parliament. Which was then opened by Mr Bacon on 25 th January 1559. Meanwhile Cecil had speaker’s slots at St Pauls Cross booked out for protestant preachers – it couldn’t hinder, surely, to get folks in the mood! Although some of preachers reflected protestant concerns that everything was going too slowly – let’s get on with it, more, quicker, higher! Il Schifanoya the Ambassador was there and figured there were 5,000 with him. But for a good Catholic, it did not make happy listening, with

‘so much evil of the Pope, of the bishops, of the prelates, of the regulars, of the Church, of the mass, and finally of our entire faith’ [1]

Now, it was traditional that at the same time as parliament met, the Convocation of the Church of England would also meet – and so they did. This was not to prove helpful to Elizabeth’s plans. Anyway, Elizabeth came down to parliament and sat in majesty while Bacon told them all what was required. His instructions may well have come from Elizabeth herself because alongside the main task

The well-making of laws for the according and uniting of the people of the realm into a uniform order of religion

There was a demand for moderation to not get hung up on the finer details of theology. There’s little doubt Elizabeth had the brain for academic stuff, but equally clear she was reasonably weary of anyone who went overboard. She told them to make sure they didn’t chuck words like ‘heretic’ or ‘schismatic’ or Papist about. It is impossible to avoid two allusions there – to her Dad and his mumpsimus and sumpsimus speech for one, and to um, the vitriol of the Brexit language as a more modern one. There I have mentioned Brexit in one of my podcasts – are you not impressed I have resisted this long? Go me, I’m too sexy for my shirt and all that.

On the 21 st February then, after making sure parliament had granted a subsidy, a bill of Supremacy and Uniformity was introduced to the Commons, combining both the matters of theology and the royal supremacy. William Cecil himself sat as a member of Parliament, and you have to imagine he was a constant presence. As far as we can know, there were no great problems, though there were objections. One John Story seems to have missed the memo about keeping it real when he reportedly said that it was a pity Elizabeth had not been executed, as he had recommended to Queen Mary. Which even in the Brexit debate would probably raise an eyebrow or two. Now look, you can’t stop me. I’ll stop, promise.

Anyway, Story seems to have been an exception and through its 3 readings and committee stage in the HoC it went. Smashing, super great, they think it’s all over.

However, in Convocation, things were a-cookin’. It is reasonably clear that the Bishops and their clergy were determined that this would not be a re-run of 1534. So Convocation drew up some articles from which they would not budge, their core beliefs, which included the papal supremacy, the real presence of Christ’s natural body in the eucharist, transubstantiation and the mass as a sacrificial offering. Oh dear.

The maths in the Lords, which is where the Bishops sat and where bill now went, looked like this – it’s very small by the way, or it is in terms of number of people. There were 27 English and Welsh dioceses. Of these 7 were vacant, and 3 bishops died after Elizabeth’ succession. The final vote when we come to it will total 39, so a further 22 secular lords also voted – some, like Arundel and Derby just found themselves something else to do so they didn’t fall foul of Queen or Pope. The Catholics lords were prepared and this time also of course they were dealing with a new monarch rather than Henry in his intimidating prime, and also a woman so ha, should be a cake walk. First of all they played for time, and delayed the debate as long as possible. When finally they could avoid it no longer, the Catholic members went on the attack. Lord Montagu reminded Elizabeth that she had asked for real counsel so you know here it comes. And that real counsel was that the bill would repeal

All that ever was made for the defence of the faith against the malignity of wicked heresies

At this point, presumably he was referring to the fact that the heresy laws would be repealed so, shock horror no burning. Archbishop of York Heath was even more blunt, and even more personal, attacking the royal supremacy

To preach or minister the holy sacraments a woman may not, neither may she be supreme Head of the Church of Christ.

It is interesting that Catholic thinking had shifted once upon a time leaders as august as Gardiner had accepted the idea of throwing the pope out of the boat but in the following theological arguments of Henry and Edwards’ reigns, they had found that Catholicism without the Pope made no sense. And so not even the royal supremacy could be accepted. Despite all the arguments of the protestant lords, the House of Lords eviscerated the Act amending it out of all recognition, with the odd concession – so the mass could be offered in two kinds. There was high fiving going on because this took some cojones, and also the Catholics were confident that they’d played a blinder they were nearly at Easter the eviscerated Bill was sent back to the Commons on 18 th March, the queen was expected to come to parliament to give assent to all the Bills on 24 th March and parliament would be dissolved. No time to rescue that horrid bill. And Cecil and Elizabeth appear to have accepted defeat. A proclamation was prepared to re-assure protestants that they could celebrate communion in two kinds, which assumed that parliament would be dissolved, and of course since the heresy laws would now still be in place people needed to know they would not be prosecuted for heresy if they took communion in two kinds. Count Feria was over the moon, Jim,

The heretics are very downcast over the last few days

A protestant bishop in waiting lamented that

The bishops were as sole monarchs in the midst of ignorant and weak men, and easily overreach our little party, either by their numbers or by their reputation for learning

But wait what’s this – the proclamation was pulled at the last moment. And on the 24 th of March there was no monarch in parliament, simply an instruction to prorogue parliament until 3 rd April. Elizabeth had decided that there would be no easy surrender.

On Easter Sunday Elizabeth let the world know that this was personal. Instead of the Latin mass, she used the English communion, on a simple wooden communion table rather than a grand altar. Instead of the chalice being reserved for the priest, the laity were given communion, in both kinds, including Elizabeth. If any further evidence is needed of Elizabeth’s personal religion, here it was. There’s another indication as it ‘appens. Philip II had very graciously offered to marry Elizabeth, and Elizabeth had delayed and delayed and Feria had complained he’d been received as though he came with bulls from dead popes, which I assume is not an exciting thing to bring with you. Elizabeth gave him another interview in March, and I am ashamed to say ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that she played with him. Feria wrote with outrage that she

‘kept repeating to me that she was heretical and so consequently could not marry your majesty’[2]

As you can imagine declaring yourself a heretic was not the normal route, but presumably since she was set on a path to eternal damnation anyway, Elizabeth felt yelling Jehovah a few times could hardly do her any more harm.

So, how to get things back on track? Well, the way to get things back of track cannot, it must be said, be described as either reputable or honourable. The route suggested was a good old traditional debate between the Catholic Bishops and Protestant divines, presided over by Nicholas Bacon. It was of course a trap. John White, Bishop of Winchester, freed from house arrest, read out the Catholic prepared statement on the first topic, and received in return a whopping reply from the Protestant side. When White rose to answer, Bacon said no no, that’s sorted move on, move on! He who speaks last of course, speaks loudest. So next time around the Bishops point blank refused to read out their statements as ordered, two of them. John White and the Bishop of Lincoln were carted off to jail for refusing their queen’s command, and it all broke up. The numbers, then, were subtly changed because 2 bishops were now in the cooler. Would it be enough was the question?

Revised bills were now introduced into parliament split into two with an act of Supremacy and an Act of Uniformity. The Supremacy Bill had a small but significant change – no longer Supreme Head, Elizabeth would be supreme Governor, with the implied promise that she would not mess with doctrinal matters, that would be for the church. This was a concession as much to the more extreme protestants, who were extremely unhappy about the idea of a female head of the church. It’s unlikely it would have been enough to satisfy any of the Catholic side. For them, however a number of concessions were made in the form of the 1552 prayer books, small but significant, and I’ll give you a flavour of those in a minute.

Once again, the bills moved easily enough through the Commons and once again in the Lords the debate was fierce. The fight in parliament was reflected in the fight in the streets of London the Privy Council was forced to launch an investigation into ‘the pulling down of images and the sacrament, and defacing the vestments and books’ while a diarist noted processions that ‘went with their banners abroad in their parish, singing in Latin Kyrie Eleison after the old fashion’. It was, in the technical term of the time, something of a bun fight.

Once more the bishops, argued hard and passionately Bishop Scott lamented the religion by

‘which our fathers were born, brought up and lived in, and have professed here in this realm without any alteration and change by the space of ten hundred years and more’.

Abbot Feckenham of Westminster thundered against a society turned upside down

The subject disobedient unto God and all superior powers

Which rather echoes Gardiner’s displeasure at what he saw as the empowerment of bible reading to encourage the great unwashed to get above themselves.

Finally, it came to the division 2 Bishops were still absent at her majesty’s pleasure, and for some reason Feckenham decided not to turn up, which is odd. The 15 remaining Bishops all took the no lobby, and 3 secular lords joined them. Against them 21 secular lords voted yes. Both acts had been passed, by the narrowest of margins. Elizabeth had won.

Now you might imagine that the protestants would have been cook a hoop. And yet, curiously enough, they were not. One wrote despairingly

Those very things which you and I have often laughed at are now seriously and solemnly entertained

So what had happened, what was the Elizabethan Settlement? Well, in many ways, it was very traditional, in the sense that the search for uniformity of religion was very much at the heart of the settlement. Everyone now had to go to church, and if you didn’t there would be fines to pay. No burning, but fines. Nowhere in Europe was the idea of toleration happily accepted the Netherlands after 1576 is one exception Bohemia had a period toleration until the defeat of the protestants at White Mountain in 1620 and France had about 80 years of toleration from the edit of Nantes from the end of the 16 th century until Louis XIV rubbed that out. In England, legal toleration would only come in 1688, and when it did was seen as a sign of abject failure, not celebrated as a fine progression to the sunlit uplands of toleration, and anyway the test acts made it far from complete. Uniformity of worship was seen as the natural state of affairs. So, the religious settlement of 1559 was therefore simply another swing of the pendulum back to forcing everyone into the same pint pot.

And yes that’s true in terms of the search for uniformity. But it was also an attempt in its own way, to achieve a kind of toleration. We might define compromise for the moment as something that satisfies nobody but which everybody could live with and maybe it’s a bit like the BBC, as long as everyone from the left is telling them they are horrendously biased and right wing, and the right wingers write furious letters about trendy lefty Londoners dominating BBC output – they know they are getting it pretty much right. The same applies to the religious settlement, It was categorically not Catholicism, and only 2 of Mary’s Bishops would accept it, and they were both the type of Bishop who rarely allowed the role to get in the way of their lifestyle choices, so maybe don’t really count. Nor, though, was it the settlement the retuning Marian exiles expected as we have seen. Together this was a settlement that in just a few year’s time in 1563 a group of Elizabeth’s own Bishops, replacing Mary’s Bishops, were to try and fail to amend in a push further towards Protestantism. As far as Elizabeth was concerned this was it, no more messing about – but it took some time for the penny to drop with more extreme protestants.

Without wanting to bore you with the detail, let me bore you with a bit of detail. For the protestant, there’s no denying there was a lot of progress in the settlement. Theologically, this is now a protestant church, no real presence, no transubstantiation visually, no images, relics, pilgrimages, candles, rosary. Basically 39 of Cranmer’s 42 articles would be accepted in 1563, as the new Church of England tried to make sense of it all.

But there were also quite a few alterations which would have had Calvin and Knox losing their supper.

You might remember that in 1549 Cranmer produced his first BCP which Gardiner gleefully claimed a true Catholic could interpret in a way as to celebrate the mass. In 1559, the revised BCP was based on the 1552 version but with some modifications that reached back to 1549. So, the critical passage in communion added the phrase ‘the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life’ was added to the 1552 text ‘take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee…’ etc. You can probably see that this slightly fudges the idea of the real presence. If you looked at it at an angle with one eye closed in a dim light it could just suggest it…now its not the real Presence – the curate was still told to take any overs home and eat them, suggesting no real transformation had occurred. But to the communicant saying the words…well. And traditional wafers were used rather than the ordinary bread specified in 1552.

And then quite a few of the outward forms had crept back in. Everyone kneeled for prayers, to bow and doff their hats at the name of Jesus although the church was organised round the pulpit and a low communion table used, they were to stand altar-wise, at the east end of the church. Ministers would wear copes during communion, which was anathema to the protestants.

For its time, there is something therefore very humane about the Elizabethan settlement, maybe to do with Elizabeth herself, maybe because it feels more like a settlement of maturity something to last and bring together, than a settlement of protest, of reaction against what some have seen as ancient iniquities. So, the line in the 1552 prayer book about the detestable tyranny of Rome and all that was taken out, because no one with a love of the traditional religion, even if very willing to comply with royal orders, could read that without being angered. Now also was included the instruction that the clergy should combat the vice ‘damnable despair’. This was the feeling that look, I’m doomed, the conviction that I am irretrievably damned, much a feature of the extreme forms of Catholicism and Protestantism. Ministers were to point out to their parishioners

Such comfortable places and sentences of scripture as so set forth the mercy, benefits and goodness of the Almighty God towards all penitent and believing persons

There were other ways in which the settlement sought to create unity. Eamon Duffy in Voices of Morebath, his famous study of the impact of the reformation on a parish reflected that

in her reign some of the deep rhythms of pre-Reformation religion, outlawed or suspect under Edward, were allowed to re-assert themselves. Women were churched, parish ales were drunk, rogation-tide processions visited the old boundaries.

Elizabeth’s settlement was therefore a humane and genuine attempt to find a middle way which would bring her people together as they had once been. To argue that it was itself an act of toleration, rather than compromise I realise is pushing it, but I think there is an argument that this was what was attempted, when you consider the way in which it was implemented. The Marian heresy laws were swept away again, to the despair of the Marian Bishops who lamented that there was no way of enforcing proper religion. Bacon’s famous phrase about windows and souls was correct – it that all Elizabeth asked for was outward conformity, going to church. What you did in the privacy of our own home was up to you you might be referred to by the locals as a ‘church papist’ but that would be that. If you could not live even with going to church, you would be identified as a recusant, and the authorities might well come after you. They would however, come after you to fine you, not to burn you in the first 10 years of Elizabeth’s reign nobody was executed for religion. And until the Catholic church decided to make it war from the 1570s it is entirely possible that this is the way things would have stayed. That it did not, that as a result of events later in the reign Catholicism came to be associated in the minds of Englishmen with foreign tyranny and with treason is one of the tragedies of English history.

But for the moment let us leave the settlement for a peace of a kind. I mean, don’t get me wrong – it’s not peaceful, the first reaction of the disappointed radical Protestants and even Bishops of the church was to rage against the moderation of the settlement and try to see it as just a first step. But one of the ironies of the study of Elizabethan religion is that it’s the extremists and fanatics that get studied because the leave a record – the fanatic catholic priests like Campion and Preston who flood into England later in the century to revive their religion and support the recusant community the fanatical puritans, who raged against the survival of what they saw as catholic practices. What is far less well covered is the response of the vast majority of ordinary parishioners – who by and large just got on with it, how ever much they did or did not like the changes.

[1] Marshall, P. Heretics and Believers: A History of the English Reformation (Kindle Locations 9835-9837). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] Marshall, Peter. Heretics and Believers: A History of the English Reformation (Kindle Locations 9880-9884). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.


History of the Title of Supreme Head of the Church of England

King Henry VIII was dead set on repudiating his wife Catherine of Aragon. It was obvious she had reached the age when she could no longer have children and Henry was in desperate need of a male heir. Also, he had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the women whom he hoped to make his wife and would give him sons. But Pope Clement VII was hesitating to give Henry an annulment or divorce because Rome had been sacked by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who happened to be Queen Catherine’s nephew. As early as 1527, Henry was threatening to renounce papal authority in England, thoroughly breaking the connection between England and the continent, represented by Rome. The king’s chief minister Cardinal Thomas Wolsey knew very well that Henry was deadly serious and wrote to Pope Clement, warning him of the dire consequences if he didn’t appease the king and give him what he wanted.

Clement agreed to convene a tribunal in England overseen by Wolsey and Cardinal Compeggio. The tribunal was opened at Blackfriars in the summer of 1529. Catherine appeared in person and gave an impassioned speech to little effect. She knew she would not get a fair hearing in this court. Proceedings dragged on. In October 1529, Henry had Wolsey charged with praemunire, a vague offence dating from the reign of King Richard II that involved violating the laws dealing with interference by foreign courts, which in this case meant papal interference. Henry was not only attacking Wolsey for not producing his desired outcome in his marriage, he was attacking the papacy itself.

Wolsey would die of illness a little over a year later, before suffering any fatal punishment from the king. The way was open for Thomas Cromwell to rise to prominence as the king’s prime secretary. By the time of Wolsey’s death, Henry had made the decision to not only grant himself an annulment from his marriage to Catherine but to make himself the supreme spiritual authority over England and its people. Cromwell began church “reform” in England.

In 1531, the Canterbury convocation was called to order at Westminster. Henry threatened to charge the entire English clergy with praemunire, frightening them into confusion and anger. He also demanded they reimburse him for all his expenses related to his annulment. After days of debate, the clergy offered Henry £100,000 for his expenses. Another £18,000 was extracted from a similar convocation in York later.

In return Henry was to issue a general pardon to the clergy so they would not be under suspicion forever. The churchmen also requested a written definition of praemunire from the king so they could avoid committing it again. Their terms included a request that Henry reaffirm the church’s right to manage their courts under their own system of laws and to provide sanctuary to fugitives, and other traditional liberties. In presenting their terms, they addressed the king as the “protector and highest head” of the church in England.

This was not enough to satisfy King Henry. He aspired to be called “sole protector and supreme head of the English church and clergy”. In addition, Henry wanted acknowledgement that the responsibility for delivering the souls of the English people to God lay with him, not with the bishops or the pope. This was completely revolutionary. Four days later the convocation accepted the king’s terms and described him as supreme head “as far as the law of Christ allows”, a term that was ambiguous, vague and highly open to debate. However, they equivocated in the “cure of the soul” clause, returning this responsibility to the clergy and the king didn’t object.

Things moved swiftly from this point forward. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon null and void. At this point, Anne was pregnant and had been secretly married to King Henry since January of 1533. In the meantime, the pope had declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine legitimate. When he learned of his marriage to Anne, Henry was excommunicated albeit a little late in the game.

Next, the Act of Succession was passed in Parliament declaring Henry and Catherine’s daughter Mary illegitimate and Anne Boleyn’s daughter Princess Elizabeth Henry’s heir. The act contained a provision requiring all subjects, if commanded, to swear to Henry’s supremacy as head of the church. The Dissolution of the Monasteries began in 1536. Administrative and legal processes were put in place, dissolving monasteries, priories, convents and friaries in England, Wales and Ireland. Their incomes were appropriated, their assets were disposed and the former personnel and functionaries were provided for.

In November of 1534, the first Act of Supremacy was passed by Parliament. The Act gave King Henry and all subsequent monarchs Royal Supremacy and declared him supreme head of the Church of England. Royal Supremacy meant the king had legal sovereignty of the civil laws over and above the laws of the church. The law further declared the king was “the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of England” and stated the crown shall enjoy “all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity”. This wording made clear Parliament was not granting the king the title (leaving open the possibility they could withdraw it later) but was acknowledging an already established fact.

Shortly after this, the Treasons Act was passed by Parliament which stipulated that to disown the Act of Supremacy and to deprive the King of his “dignity, title, or name” was considered to be treason. The most famous person to resist the Treason Act was Sir Thomas More, and he lost his head as a consequence. In 1537, the Irish Supremacy Act was passed by the Parliament of Ireland. This Act established Henry VIII as the supreme head of the Church of Ireland.

Henry had fully abandoned Rome. However, when his daughter by Catherine of Aragon became Queen Mary I in 1553, she attempted to reestablish the English church’s allegiance to the Pope and had the Act of Supremacy repealed by Parliament in 1555. Mary died in 1558 and her sister Elizabeth ascended the throne. One of the first acts of Parliament under Elizabeth was the passage the Act of Supremacy of 1558, restoring her father’s original act. It clarified and narrowed the definition of what constituted heresy.

A new Oath of Supremacy was required to be sworn by the nobles. This oath gave the Queen’s title as Supreme Governor of the church rather than Supreme Head. Supreme Governor was deemed to be more acceptable to the nobility. It was an equivocal term, making Elizabeth head of the church without actually saying she actually was because it was believed at the time that a woman could not be head of the church. The term would also avoid the charge that the monarchy claimed divinity or usurped Christ, whom the Bible plainly describes as Head of the Church.

The Act of Uniformity was also passed in 1558. This act set the order of prayer to be used in the English Book of Common Prayer. All persons were compelled to attend church once a week or be fined twelve pence which was a considerable sum for the poor. These two Acts constituted what is referred to as the Elizabethan Religious Settlement.

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement was meant to unify the Church of England after the divisions and chaos created by the prior three monarchs. The Act of Supremacy of 1558 remained in place until the nineteenth century. From then on some of the sections began to be repealed and by 1969, all but section eight had been repealed by various acts of Parliament. The entire Act was repealed in Northern Ireland in 1950 and 1953. Section eight is still in force in Great Britain.


Problems in Establishing the Religious Settlement (GCSE Example Answer)

The fact that England was roughly divided between the Catholic north west and the Protestant south east did make implementing the religious settlement difficult in some areas. However, the fact that most of the country was relatively mixed or easy to control meant that geographical divisions were not the most important issue. The challenges to Elizabeth’s authority from the clergy (especially the bishops) and puritans were far more difficult for Elizabeth in establishing the religious settlement.

[Criteria for the required judgement justified from the outset, with a clear explanation of why geographical divisions were not the most important. This instant approach to the question demonstrates a Level 4 approach and wins over the examiner from the outset.]

Geographical divisions were problematic for Elizabeth to some extent. Generally, the south east and in particular London was the most Protestant, due to its proximity to the Protestant Netherlands and Germanic states. By extension therefore, areas that were furthest from London and the new ideas (such as Durham, Lancashire and the diocese of Lichfield in Stafford) were heavily Catholic and resistant to Elizabeth’s religious settlement. This meant that upon implementing the religious settlement, Elizabeth had to deal with extremism on both sides. For example, in London there was widespread destruction of church ornaments and statues of saints, owing to the fact that the settlement wanted to remove the Catholic practice of idolatry. This caused friction within the community. Likewise, in the north west, recusancy was high, even amongst the nobility (which partly explains why Northumberland and Westmoreland were able to rebel in the north in 1569) and this helped undermine the implementation of the settlement.

[Understanding of the characteristics of the period showcased by awareness of the resistance from Catholics, as well as the violence from puritans (the latter is often neglected as students often assume that because the puritans are Protestant they don’t do anything to undermine Elizabeth).]

However, Elizabeth had greater challenges to her authority that made the implementation of the settlement even more difficult, from both Catholic and Protestant clergy alike. Despite approximately 8000 of 10,000 clergy taking an oath recognising Elizabeth as supreme governor of the Church under the Act of Supremacy, only 1 of 28 bishops accepted it, meaning Elizabeth had to replace these bishops with Protestants (although there was a shortage of well-qualified Protestant clergy in England at the time). The challenges faced by Elizabeth’s settlement are illustrated by the first round of visitations in 1559, which sought to assess the extent to which the settlement was being successfully enforced. 400 clergy were dismissed, as they failed to implement the necessary changes, showing that there was Catholic resistance to the settlement.

[Statistics used here accurately capture the scale of the problem.]

The Queen’s problems were not only with Catholic clergy who resisted change. Elizabeth I also had to deal with the staunch views of puritans. This can be seen with both the crucifix and vestment controversies. Puritan bishops wanted to ensure all crucifixes were removed from churches as this was seen as idolatry and undermined the purity of God’s message through the bible. Elizabeth, however, wanted to keep crucifixes in churches as she didn’t want to isolate and anger English Catholics by changing too much too soon. When puritan bishops threatened to resign, Elizabeth backed down as she had insufficient trained Protestant clergy. With vestments, Elizabeth wanted Protestant clergy to wear special clothes. Despite experiencing some resistance (as Protestantism championed the wearing of ordinary clothes to signify all people were equal under God) the vast majority assented to Elizabeth’s wishes. However, the situation was not fully resolved until 1566, demonstrating how difficult Elizabeth found it to enforce her religious settlement.

[This is where good content knowledge in the form of dates can help quantify the extent of a problem.]

Lastly, limitations on the settlement can be attributed to Elizabeth’s own weakness upon acceding the throne. As a ‘Virgin Queen’ whose legitimacy was in question, and with a Catholic rival claimant in the form of Mary Queen of Scots north of the border, Elizabeth didn’t want to alienate her Catholic population and so was lenient towards their disobedience. Despite their limited interference in the issue over the religious settlement, the Pope’s instruction in 1566 for Catholics to not attend Church of England services certainly had an impact on recusancy. Although, officially, many punishments were introduced to reinforce the settlement (which in itself demonstrates its lack of popularity among the people) such as fines and imprisonment, as well as loss of job or property, such was Elizabeth’s weakened position as Queen that she instructed the authorities to tread lightly with recusancy as she did not want to create martyrs, nor let it be common knowledge that there were high levels of disobedience.

[Elizabeth was always having to deal with different levels of papal interference so referencing this is important.]

In conclusion, I disagree with the statement. Whilst geographical divisions clearly had a role to play in the continuing resistance of Catholicism in the north and the increasing growth of puritanism in the south (both of which undermined Elizabeth’s ‘middle way’), it was Elizabeth’s own weak position which meant that the settlement could not be enforced as quickly and as consistently as she would have liked, despite the use of visitations and the threat of the law. This is why she was beholden to Protestant Bishops and backed down with the crucifix controversy and tolerated recusancy for years. Elizabeth’s priority was in maintaining power. It is no surprise therefore, later on in Elizabeth’s reign, that the more secure her hold on power became, the less tolerant she became of puritanism and recusancy alike.

Overall Examiner Comments:

Level 4, 13-16 (+3-4 marks SPAG)

A very detailed response which demonstrates excellent subject knowledge and reaches a clear judgement based on justifiable criteria. The answer does touch upon the issue of religion but this could be extended further to acknowledge the extensive divisions within society given the preceding tumultuous changes (a brief mention of the role of the puritans for example could help). Nevertheless, the answer has sustained conceptual focus and is wide-ranging in its analysis.


Main keywords of the article below: period, religion, england?, religions, elizabethan.

KEY TOPICS
What were the two major religions in Elizabethan England? Roman Catholic - Church service and the bible should be in latin just like it has been for 1000 years. [1] Shakespeare, along with all Elizabethans, would have been well aware of the ebbs and flows of this power struggle, and Shakespeare often referenced religion and its effects on culture and politics in his plays. [2] The convictions and beliefs in these different religions were so strong that they led to the executions of many adherents to both of these Elizabethan religions. [3]


The Elizabethan period began in 1558, when Elizabeth the First became queen and one of the most popular monarchs in English history. [4] The Elizabethan period in England was a time of growing patriotism: a feeling of pride in being English. [4] The Elizabethan period is also remembered for the richness of its poetry and drama, especially the plays and poems of William Shakespeare. [4]

The Elizabethan era is the epoch in the Tudor period of the history of England during the reign of Queen ElizabethI (1558-1603). [5] Not only was religion in England during the Elizabethan era an important facet to even out the chaos imposed by her predecessors Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I, it also became a vital issue affecting her right as a queen as the validity of the marriage of her mother Anne Boleyn and her father, Henry VII was being threatened by the Roman Catholics. [6] Due to the changes of religion bills during the Elizabethan era in England, some followers became confused, becoming "neutrals," and some even "pagans." [6]

Though considered a golden age by many historians, the Elizabethan Age was not without its troubles, particularly in the realm of religion. [7]

The Elizabethan Age was the period of English history the coincided with the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, from 1558 to 1603. [7] During the Elizabethan era, people looked forward to holidays because opportunities for leisure were limited, with time away from hard work being restricted to periods after church on Sundays. [5] Elizabethan England was not particularly successful in a military sense during the period, but it avoided major defeats and built up a powerful navy. [5]

This era in English cultural history is sometimes referred to as "the age of Shakespeare" or "the Elizabethan era", the first period in English and British history to be named after a reigning monarch. [8] This time period was ruled by the esteemed Queen Elizabeth I and is also called the Elizabethan Era. [9]

Religion was a major issue for Queen Elizabeth I. For many years the Roman Catholic Church dominated England with great power (Elizabethan World View). [9] Many people throughout England struggled to find the "correct" religion (Elizabethan World View). [8] Elizabeth ruled in a time of religious turmoil both the Catholics and Protestants fought to be the official religion of England. (Elizabethan World View). [8] She established the Elizabethan Church, in 1559, "she wanted her Church to be popular with her people, and for Catholicism to die out naturally as people turned to the religion she had established" (Elizabeth R). [8]

It may claim to have no less important bearings on the political history and philosophy of the period for this was an age when politics and religion were even more than usually interlocked. [10] Maybe I needed to look more closely at the book’s title, and remember that it is Religion Around Shakespeare, where Shakespeare’s lifetime serves as an arbitrary period for Kaufman’s analysis, rather than Religion in Shakespeare. [11]

The two major religions in Elizabethan England were the Catholic and Protestant religions. [12]

His The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (1967) was based on a doctoral thesis supervised by Sir John Neale and led to the series of his seminal books and essays, including Archbishop Grindal: The Struggle for a Reformed Church (1979), The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, 1559-1625 (1982), and "The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I’ (1987). [13] In the traditional perspective of the Church of England and its historians, the English Reformation had come to its conclusion and consummation in the first regnal year of Queen Elizabeth I. The Elizabethan Settlement of Religion had been defined by Elizabeth's first Parliament in 1559, a historic watershed. [13]

During the Elizabethan era their were many religiuos groups that differed from eachother in many ways for example in the World book Christine Hamlin reads ¨Druidism, the religion practiced by the Druids, involved the worship of many gods. [14]

The Elizabethan era was a period of time with many obstacles but also many achievements Jake Bumgardner states "Elizabethan Age, or Elizabethan Era, was a period of English history during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, from 1558 to 1603. [14] The Elizabethan Age is the time period associated with the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and is often considered to be a golden age in English history. [15] The Elizabethan Age is sometimes called the Golden Age, because it was a time of great achievement in England." : During the years 1558-1603 with queen Elizabeth 1 often called the golden age. : With the great achievement in this period of time often referenced as the golden age with help of a strong ruler. [14]

The Elizabethan Age is viewed so highly because of the contrasts with the periods before and after. [15] England’s trade with Turkey, Morocco and Persia (which continued intermittently throughout this period) transformed the domestic economy of Elizabethan England, from what people ate to what they wore - and even what they said. [16]

It was also a period when the country was the coveted goal - and bull’s-eye -- in the Wars of Religion that plagued Europe. [17]

Why did Queen Elizabeth I ban all performances of religious plays and stories? She banned the performances of religious plays and stories in order to prohibit the violence over religion. [1] Queen Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603) Adhered to the Protestant religion and restored Protestantism as the official religion. [3]

Some Elizabethans were strong supporters of the Protestant reformation, some were staunchly Catholic, some were ambivalent, and some still practiced a stricter form of Christianity, Puritanism. [2] While it was not a crime to be Catholic in Elizabethan England, there was no legal way for Catholics to practice their faith. [3] His plays, however, do give a clear picture of the religious climate in Elizabethan England and its effect on daily life. [2]

Throughout this period, everyday life in England could be quite complicated. [2] England during this period had a centralised, well-organised, and effective government, largely a result of the reforms of Henry VII and Henry VIII, as well as Elizabeth's harsh punishments for any dissenters. [5] It was also the end of the period when England was a separate realm before its royal union with Scotland. [5]

It was a brief period of internal peace between the English Reformation and the religious battles between Protestants and Catholics and then the political battles between parliament and the monarchy that engulfed the remainder of the seventeenth century. [5] Over a period of twenty years, the country had gone from Henrician Catholic to Protestant to Catholic to Protestant again. [18]

The rosary is period in several forms, including the modern one, and used only by Catholics. [19] One must remember that sugar in the Middle Ages or Early Modern Period was often considered medicinal, and used heavily in such things. [5] Girl power: the European marriage pattern and labour markets in the North Sea region in the late medieval and early modern period. [5]

On balance, it can be said that Elizabeth provided the country with a long period of general if not total peace and generally increased prosperity due in large part to stealing from Spanish treasure ships, raiding settlements with low defenses, and selling African slaves. [5] With taxes lower than other European countries of the period, the economy expanded though the wealth was distributed with wild unevenness, there was clearly more wealth to go around at the end of Elizabeth's reign than at the beginning. [5] Potatoes were just arriving at the end of the period, and became increasingly important. [5] This period of time is remembered for its richness of poetry and drama. [4] Missals and prayerbooks are good all but those containing the simplest private devotions (i.e., for children) would be in Latin it is heresy to translate the Mass, period. [18] The term Puritan is common in period, although sometimes the word precisionist is used. [19] During the Tudor period, the use of glass when building houses was first used, and became widespread. [5] Watching plays became very popular during the Tudor period. [5]

Catholicism was being revitalized on the Continent and missionaries were entering England with the specific purpose of reconverting the country., A further threat-was the arrival in England of the deposed Mary, Queen of Scots, who immediately became the focus of Catholic discontent against the Elizabethan regime. storm clouds began to gather. [18] At the same time as the Catholic threat intensified, a growing body of reforming Protestants voiced their dissatisfaction with the Elizabethan Church. [18] J. E. Neale's " Puritan Choir " thesis claimed that a small bloc of radical Protestant representatives struggled for a more aggressive reform, and had a major influence on Elizabethan politics. [20]

With William Shakespeare at his peak, as well as Christopher Marlowe and many other playwrights, actors and theatres constantly busy, the high culture of the Elizabethan Renaissance was best expressed in its theatre. [5]

The Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which was made during the reign of Elizabeth I, was a response to the religious divisions in England during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I. [20] The Protestant/Catholic divide was settled, for a time, by the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, and parliament was not yet strong enough to challenge royal absolutism. [5]

The symbol of Britannia (a female personification of Great Britain) was first used in 1572, and often thereafter, to mark the Elizabethan age as a renaissance that inspired national pride through classical ideals, international expansion, and naval triumph over the Spanish - at the time, a rival kingdom much hated by the people of the land. [5] The Elizabethan Age was also an age of plots and conspiracies, frequently political in nature, and often involving the highest levels of Elizabethan society. [5] The Elizabethan Age contrasts sharply with the previous and following reigns. [5] In the Elizabethan age the Church was an inseparable part of both public and private life. [18]

English achievements in exploration were noteworthy in the Elizabethan era. [5] The Victorian era and the early 20th century idealised the Elizabethan era. [5]

While Elizabethan England is not thought of as an age of technological innovation, some progress did occur. [5]

The Papal Bull presented a particularly serious challenge to the regime, and a fearful dilemma to Catholics, since in absolving all subjects of their allegiance to the Queen, it forced them to choose between their religion and their national loyalty, and made them -- in the eyes of the government -- potential traitors. [18] Christianity, the most important religion in Europe, is divided in two major factions - Catholics and Protestants - of diametrically opposing beliefs. [21] She did, however, firmly believe that people should be allowed to practice the Catholic religion without fear so long they kept their religion private and were prepared to attend their parish churches. [21] Schools taught these "favored" religion if you did not practices these religions then it would lead to great danger: Imprisonment, Torture. [22]

The religious situation in England was confused differences in religion were likely to cause to civil unrest at the very least. [21] When she inherited the throne, one of Elizabeth's main concerns was the religion of England, which was mainly damaged Catholicism due to the persecutions of the minority. [6]

It is referred to as the new religion or the established church, but not yet as "C of E". (Do not give in to the modern inclination to acronyms and initialisms.) [19] Being a Roman Catholic is not a crime, but there is a fine for not conforming to the established religion that is, for not going to church on Sunday. [19] Protestantism had been finally established as the national religion the year before Shakespeare was born. [23]

In the early 16th century, religion was an important factor which held society together, but later became a vehicle for extending and consolidating political power. [21] The political and not the spiritual import of religion was her prime interest. [18] The ceremonies Elizabeth maintained in her own chapels reflected her innate conservatism about religion, as with many other matters. [18] To minimize bloodshed over religion in her dominions, the religious settlement between the factions of Rome and Geneva was brought about. [21] Since she believed that the essence of religion was deeply personal and that men might come to God from different paths, it was not her wish to pry into individual consciences but only to enforce a degree of outward religious conformity in the interests of national unity. [18]

Puritanism is not a separate religion, but a Calvinist leaning within the Anglican church. [19] Bibles are generally out, unless your character is well-educated, has an unusually strong interest in religion (e.g., an amateur theologian), and it is in Latin. [18] The war was only partly about religion, but the abolition of prayer book and episcopacy by a Puritan Parliament was an element in the causes of the conflict. [20]

The official established state religion is the Church of England. [19] One of the most important concerns during Elizabeth's early reign was the question of which form the state religion would take. [20] Elizabeth's first act as the Queen was restoring Protestantism as the official religion. [21]

In response and reaction to this hyperbole, modern historians and biographers have tended to take a more dispassionate view of the Tudor period. [5]

Perhaps one of the most essential contributions to modern day society to come from this period of time is the technology. [9] In this chapter, experienced instructors help you explore the historical period in Europe corresponding with Queen Elizabeth's reign. [24] It was a brief period of largely internal peace between the English Reformation and the battles betweenProtestants and Catholics and the battles between parliament and the monarchy that engulfed the seventeenth century. [25] Or take Persons' Conference about the Next Succession : it belongs at least as much to the political as to the ecclesiastical history of the period, but hardly touches the theological issues at all. [10]

Much recent history of the Reformation in England has sought to demolish the myth of the "Elizabethan settlement" between competing factions within the English church the book’s narrative ably shows how fractured early modern English Christianity was within a generation of the Reformation. [11] Kaufman gives us a readable, thoroughly well-documented history of religious controversy in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, but gives us little on Shakespeare, whose silence on the controversies Kaufman describes remains as elusive at the end of the book as it was at the beginning. [11] In contrast with other Elizabethan and Jacobean authors, Shakespeare remains detached from contemporary events, to judge by his plays. [11] This also happened to be when Elizabethan Theatre began to grow and playwrights like Shakespeare composed many plays that changed the way of the old style theatre ways. [8]

This was a major conflict for many after Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant (Elizabethan World View). [9] Elizabethan Catholics believed that Church Services and the Bible should be in Latin, as it had been for 1000 years. [12] Elizabethan Protestants believed that Church Services and the Bible should be in the language of the people so that the ordinary people could understand them. [12] Elizabethan hoped that by keeping the Church as it was, her people would become accustomed to it. [26]

Elizabethan Catholics believed that Priests were the link between God and the people and that the Pope was ordained by God. [12] Elizabethan Catholics believed that Priests and the Pope were able to forgive sins - at a price. [12]

The Act of Uniformity was a set of rules regarding the new Elizabethan Church (Elizabeth R). [8] Often referred to as the golden age in English history, the Renaissance brought new light to the citizens ("Elizabethan Era"). [9] In Elizabethan theater, William Shakespeare, among others, composed and staged plays in a variety of settings that broke away from England's past style of plays. [8] William Shakespeare played an enormous role in the Elizabethan theatre his unique writing style in "The Taming of The Shrew" influenced modern day literature. [8]

Common rights and abilities of our time such as voting, going to school, and achieving steady jobs were impossible for the average Elizabethan woman to achieve. [9] I'm writing a story about an Elizabethan manor renovated in the 19th century, and I have these poor, stuffy Victorians trying to figure out how to make merry the Olde Fashioned way without making fools of themselves. [27]

First, there is a minor description about the Elizabethan era and how Queen Elizabeth's rule in England influenced the music back then. [8] Criminals during Queen Elizabeth’s reign in England, known as the Elizabethan Era, were subject to harsh, violent. [9] The Elizabethan era was the Queen Elizabeth I's reign which was from 1558-1603. [8] The Elizabethan Era, named after Queen Elizabeth I, was a time of change and discovery (Elizabethan Superstitions). [8] Queen Elizabeth played a huge role in the Elizabethan era ("Queen"). [8]

During the Elizabethan era, people were entertained by sources of entertainment, such as plays, music, and poetry. [8] "The significance of the Elizabethan religious settlement is that it was able to hold the vast majority of the people together, despite being a compromise few would have chosen" (Elizabeth I). [8]

Since it professes to deal with the religious controversies of the Elizabethan Age, one's first instinct may be to place it under the heading of Theology or Church History. [10] There is, moreover, a deep but much neglected connection between the religious controversies and the secular literature of the Elizabethan Age. [10]

This belief became popular once in again in medical practice during the Elizabethan era. [12] As the Elizabethan Era was an age of great chance, much advancement was made in the fields of science. [9] The Elizabethan Era was a significant epoch in the United Kingdom’s history. [9]

Elizabethan England was a world of political intrigue and assassination attempts and decease and terrible hygiene: Not to mention war. [25]

The dominate religion in many countries reflected the religious views of the king or queen with little choice for the people to determine their own. [9] She wanted her Church to be popular with her people, and for Catholicism to die out naturally as people turned to the religion she had established. [26] For many years people were unsure which religion they should partake in. [9] As religion began to establish various denominations, people started to question the superiority of one religion over another. [9]

They hoped to start a mass uprising among English Catholics (followers of a religion headed by a pope and based in Rome, Italy), who had become increasingly alarmed at laws that limited the practice of their religion. [25] Contemporary politics and religion were not absent from the early modern English stage, however, as allusions to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre demonstrate. [11]

Knowledge of William Shakespeare's religion is important in understanding Shakespeare and his works because of the wealth of biblical and liturgical allusions. [12] Perhaps because I am a literary historian, I cannot help feeling frustration over all the questions about the effects of the religion around Shakespeare on his art that go unasked and unanswered in Kaufman’s book. [11] By its title alone, Peter Iver Kaufman’s Religion Around Shakespeare would appear to respond to that need to know. [11] As endless numbers of biographical studies demonstrate, Shakespeare remains frustratingly elusive on questions of religion. [11]

Kaufman’s analysis of Shakespeare’s relationship with religion and religious controversy would benefit from contrasting it with those of other playwrights. [11] Take advantage of their expertise to examine a time in which religious fervor was often followed by the desire for political independence, especially in territories where growing Protestant movements clashed with state religions. [24]

Queen Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603) succeeded her sister Queen Mary and adhered to the Protestant religion and restored Protestantism as the official religion. [12]

This disparity of power prominently appears in the works of the time period's most well-known playwright, William Shakespeare. [9]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(27 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)


Watch the video: ELIZABETH Act of Uniformity