Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern England

The changing political and theological landscape of early modern England stands as a complex topic. When examining the legacy of a changing kingdom from Catholicism to Protestantism and the subsequent religious and political conflicts, the context of these conflicts stands as significant. This paper argues that while the institutions of Protestant England viewed their actions in a secular manner in enforcing the supremacy of the monarch over the authority of the Pope as secular, the ensuing legislation and cultural shift represents a broader trend towards anti-Catholic persecution. Roy Williams explains.

A portrait of Queen Elizabeth I of England in her coronation robes. Source National Portrait Gallery: NPG 5175, available here.

By examining the legacy of priests, and lay Catholics who were targeted via anti-Catholic legislation, a broader narrative can be established in understanding the importance of anti-Catholicism as a nexus of political and religious perspective. From this examination of martyrdom as the connecting point between religious and political conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism, a larger trend of anti-Catholicism beginning with the cultural impact of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs through events such as the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and the Fatal Vespers incident in 1623 can be discerned. With the establishment of anti-Catholicism as an important factor in how English Protestants viewed themselves and the larger world around them in opposition to Catholics, the larger trend of anti-Catholicism and religious persecution is magnified. To understand these larger events and the larger trends over time it stands as significant to begin with the interrogation of the anti-Catholic laws of Elizabeth I.

Elizabeth I succeeded her Catholic predecessor Mary I in 1558 ushering in a more pronounced change towards Protestantism from the Catholic restoration Mary I had attempted. Elizabeth’s larger ideological perspective of Protestantism in opposition to Catholicism is reflected in the laws of her reign which stood as the cornerstone for anti-Catholic persecution. Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act of 1559 set the stage for larger conflict between Catholics and the authority of the monarchy in establishing the supremacy of the monarch over that of the papacy as the law of the land. Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and State. Anyone refusing to take the Oath could be charged with treason. There were three levels of penalties for refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy. A first refusal to resulted in the loss of all movable goods. A second offence could mean life in prison and a loss of all real estate possessions. A third offence would result in a charge of High Treason and death.

The rejection of the authority of the papacy on secular grounds and the establishment of Elizabeth as the supreme governor of the church stands as one of the most significant aspects of the 1559 Act of Supremacy, “ 'I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities.”(1) This conflict between Elizabeth and the authority of the Pope stands as a significant development in the larger trends toward anti-Catholicism. Still however, the most daunting and broad aspect of the 1559 Act of Supremacy was the institution of an oath which forced all those in public life from ecclesiastical matters to political to swear an oath upholding the supremacy of Elizabeth. The oath was designed to be a form of enforcement which specifically targeted Catholics in challenging their beliefs in viewing the papacy as the supreme governor in ecclesiastical manners. This direct conflict with Catholics and the administration of justice in a manner which excluded Catholics from public and ecclesiastical life displays the first of many laws established in a larger trend towards anti-Catholicism, “And that it may be also enacted, that if any such archbishop, bishop, or other ecclesiastical officer or minister, or any of the said temporal judges, justiciaries, or other lay officer or minister, shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take or receive the said oath, that then he so refusing shall forfeit and lose, only during his life, all and every ecclesiastical and spiritual promotion, benefice, and office, and every temporal and lay promotion and office.”(2)

Act of Uniformity

Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity of 1559 established another aspect of anti-Catholicism in attempting to both unify the Church of England as well as compel all subjects to attend Protestant church services. The Act of Uniformity established the grounds for recusancy in punishing those who did not attend Protestant church services with fines and censure, “upon pain of punishment by the censures of the Church, and also upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence, to be levied by the churchwardens of the parish where such offence shall be done, to the use of the poor of the same parish, of the goods, lands, and tenements of such offender, by way of distress.”(3) Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity established an interesting dynamic between Catholic families who could afford to pay the fine of twelve pence versus poorer families who could not afford the fines. In establishing this precedent, the fines for recusancy would increase as the larger trends of anti-Catholicism became fiercer. The larger legal condemnation of recusants would culminate in the Act Against Recusants of 1593 restricting the movement of recusants within five miles of their homes.(4) If recusants were caught further than this five-mile limit, their properties would be forfeit to the state.

Still however, it stands as significant to analyze Elizabeth’s Act against Jesuits and Seminarists of 1585 which set the stage for persecution of Catholic priests. The Act commanded all Roman Catholic priests to leave the country in 40 days or they would be punished for high treason, unless within the 40 days they swore an oath to obey the Queen. Those who harbored them, and all those who knew of their presence and failed to inform the authorities would be fined and imprisoned for felony. The significance of the Act stands in the escalation of conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Previous laws were much less severe in their treatment of Catholics, however, Elizabeth’s Act against Jesuits and Seminarists set up the potential for execution and martyrdom of Catholic priests who refused to comply, “And every person which after the end of the same forty days, and after such time of departure as is before limited and appointed, shall wittingly and willingly receive, relieve, comfort, aid, or maintain any such Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest, deacon, or religious or ecclesiastical person, as is aforesaid, being at liberty, or out of hold, knowing him to be a Jesuit, seminary priest, or other such priest, deacon, or religious or ecclesiastical person, as is aforesaid, shall also for such offence be adjudged a felon, without benefit of clergy, and suffer death, lose, and forfeit, as in case of one attainted of felony.”(5) The trends of anti-Catholicism had become more severe and restrictive over the reign of Elizabeth, and it stands as significant to examine the larger political and cultural context which established this wave of persecution.

Context

In examining the broader trends toward anti-Catholic persecution, it becomes essential to analyze the larger political and cultural context over time. Though Elizabethan Anti-Catholic legislation was surely harsh, the realities of previous instances of Marian persecutions of Protestants stands as a significant indicator to Elizabeth’s Protestant reactions against Catholics. Mary’s persecution of Protestants who dissented against her attempted Catholic restoration can be viewed through the lens of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs which established the framework for anti-Catholic perspective. John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was first published in 1563 and provided a narrative emphasizing Protestant martyrs at the hands of Catholic cruelty. Foxe established a line of martyrs from English history, claiming the heretics of the Middle Ages for the Protestant cause. Foxe also began his narrative with the year 1000 depicting Pope Sylvester II as a sorcerer who conjured Satan inevitably portraying the Catholic church as being directly controlled by Satan himself.

By crafting a single narrative of English history in relation to Protestant martyrs being persecuted by the Catholic church, Foxe established a significant and defining framework for which English Protestants viewed themselves in opposition to Catholics. Foxe’s opposition to Catholicism stands as significant when contextualizing the nexus of political and religious conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism, “For as much as we are come now to the time of Quene Mary, when as so many were put to death for th e cause especially of the Masse, & the sacrament of thaltar (as they cal it) I thought it conuenient vpon thoccasion geuē, in the ingresse of this foresaid storie, first to prefixe before, by the way of preface, some declaratiõ collected out of diuers writers and autors, wherby to set forth to the reader the great absurditie, wicked abuse, and perilous idolatry of the Popish masse”(6) O.T. Hargrave describes Foxe’s exploitation of the Marian persecutions as a brilliant and influential example of Protestant propaganda, “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs masterfully exploited the Marian persecution, converting it, as Gordon Rupp put it, into the greatest single act of propaganda in history.”(7) The significance of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs lies in its influence on the creation of a proto-national mythology for English Protestants. From the philosophical and religious perspectives of Foxe, English Protestants crafted an identity in direct opposition to Catholicism whether domestic or foreign.

Foreign perspective

From the foreign perspective of English opposition to Catholicism, the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604 stands as a significant political and cultural event in reinforcing anti-Catholicism as a defining factor of the English public consciousness. While the war was never formally declared and largely amounted to English privateering attacks on Spanish vessels, one event stands as particularly significant in understanding the larger English trends of anti-Catholicism. In 1588, King Phillip II of Spain ordered an invasion of England to depose Elizabeth I and reinstitute Catholicism as well as stop English privateering attacks on Spanish vessels. The invasion was repelled by the English, but the most significant aspect of the Spanish defeat came from the destruction of the Armada when they attempted to retreat home around the coast of Scotland and Ireland. Due to inclement weather, over a third of the Armada was destroyed and never returned home. In dispelling the national mythology of an overwhelming success, Lawrence Stone argues that the English campaign against the Spanish was one marked by lack of money, victuals, ammunition, and the prevalence of disease, “The English preparations against the Armada in 1588 take on an aspect rather different from the traditional and perhaps heroic tale that is handed down in the history books.”(8) While the repelling of the Spanish did not represent an overwhelming military victory, English Protestants seized on the opportunity to argue that God had repelled the Catholic invaders by crashing their ships into the rocky shores. Mathew Haviland details with exuberance, the destruction of the Spanish Armada as a sign of Gods grace and his protection of England against papists,

Two works of equall grace, but greater wonder,

The Lord hath done for us, past all mans reason;

When Papists did attempt to bring us under

By Spains huge Army and damn'd Percie's treason.

I, and my house these great things will remember,

And in remembrance sanctifie two days,

In August one, the other in November;

  Both made by GOD for us to give him praise(9)

Haviland’s poem was published in 1636 and represents the culmination of Protestant attitudes towards Catholics as both an ecclesiastical and political threat to the sovereignty of England. In reexamining the events of the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Haviland also details another significant event in the larger trends toward English anti-Catholicism, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

James I

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 represents a significant attempt by Catholic separatists to overthrow the monarch and parliament in hopes of reestablishing Catholicism as the religion of England. While there were previous plots at the life of Elizabeth such as the Ridolfi Plot of 1571, the Throckmorton Plot of 1583, and the Babington Plot of 1586, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as especially significant when understanding the context of English anti-Catholicism. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as a Catholic reaction to the hopes that James I in succeeding Elizabeth I would reign in a manner more tolerant to English Catholics.

While James I was certainly a Protestant Calvinist, the reality that he was the son of Mary Queen of Scotts, a Catholic, stood as a hopeful prospect for English Catholics. When it became evident that James I would continue the broader trends of English anti-Catholicism and persecution, the hopelessness of the situation led some fanatics to attempt to assassinate James. Led by Robert Catesby and a handful of co-conspirators such as Thomas Percy, and Guy Fawkes, the Catholic traitors attempted to blow up the House of Lords on November 5th, 1605. They were discovered and subsequently charged with treason resulting in multiple executions and a broader crackdown on Catholics throughout England. Immediately after the assassination attempt James released a proclamation declaring the conspirators as “bitterly corrupted with the superstition of the Romish Religion.”(10) Mark Nicholls provides an intriguing perspective in understanding the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 within the context of English Catholic perspective, “Revenge was directed against erstwhile friends as well as professed enemies. Rather than suffering from inadequate support among the peerage, the energy and drive of the Gunpowder Plot depended on an us against them mentality, defensive, reactionary, at odds not only with the Protestant establishment but also with much of that sustaining powerhouse of English Catholicism, the conservative Catholic aristocracy and wealthier gentry.”(11) The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as equally significant in nature to the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Once again, the forces of papists had been thwarted by providence in protecting the Protestant nation of England from Catholicism. It stands as a significant unification of the English Protestant ideologies which saw Catholicism as both a theological and philosophical threat as well as a political threat in being the religion of England’s enemies.

Fatal Vespers

A lesser known but equally intriguing event, the incident of the Fatal Vespers in 1623 displays another aspect of the larger trend of Protestant justification of Catholic suffering. The Fatal Vespers incident of 1623 was the collapse of a building in Black Friars in which a clandestine Roman Catholic Mass was being observed. The collapse resulted in 95 deaths including the two priests present at the Mass. Protestants utilized the disaster as a further display of God’s rejection of Catholicism. Some Protestants were careful to contextualize the event as a tragedy for those involved but also a justified occurrence ordained by God, “For the time, it was between three and foure of the clocke upon Sunday, which was the six and twentieth of October, according to the English computation, as they were hearing of a sermon, and celebrating after than Evensong(if God had not prevented it) according to the rites of the Roman Church.”(12)

In understanding the movement of perception and culture towards Catholicism, Alexandra Washam’s exploration of the Fatal Vesper event stands as a consequential moment in understanding the larger mythos and collective consciousness of the changing Protestant nation of England in reference to Catholicism. The Fatal Vespers disaster represents a cultural moment in which English Protestants amidst the uncertainty of a potential Habsburg alliance and warfare with Catholic Spain culminated in larger cultural reverberations of anti-Catholicism. Walsham points to the interrelation of popular royalism and anti-popery as a unifying cultural force in opposing Catholicism.(13)

The ease for which English Protestants were capable of justifying a tragedy in which Catholics died in mass numbers displays the broader trends of anti-Catholicism throughout English society. With the larger context of anti-Catholic legislation in tandem with larger political and national anxieties regarding England’s enemies, the Fatal Vesper incident provides an intriguing glance into the Protestant justification for Catholic persecution.

Legislation in context

In contextualizing the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth with broader political and cultural events, the significance of the increasing tides of anti-Catholic sentiment become apparent. Without the Protestant English mythology created by John Foxe, subsequent events and conflicts between Protestants and Catholics would not be connective in nature. John Foxe’s polemical unity between theological and political perspective provides the framework for which all events between Catholics and Protestants would be perceived by English Protestants. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs establishes the nexus for which subsequent Catholic and Protestant interactions would gain their significance in a larger narrative regarding the perceived abuses and injustices of the Catholics wrought on Protestants. From Foxe’s creation of this proto-national mythology, the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth provided the tools for which the kingdom could persecute Catholics who refused to conform to the English Protestant identity. In turning now to those Catholics who experienced persecution and martyrdom, the larger perspective can be contextualized within the lives of individuals who were affected by these broader trends.

When examining these larger changes throughout the law of England in reference to rising anti-Catholicism it becomes important to both contextualize the larger historiographical debates as well as the perspective from Catholic individuals who would be prosecuted according to these changing laws. While it is tempting to view the Catholic community in England following the Reformation as a larger continuation of medieval traditional pre-Reformation Catholicism, scholar John Bossy argues against such interpretations. Bossy points to a continental mission-driven direction in establishing England, a now Protestant nation, as a point of missions from Catholic authorities on the continent. In this regard, Bossy points to the Catholicism that persisted under the reign of Elizabeth I as both a dissident religious reaction to the workings of the Church of England as well as a continental missionary importation.(14)  While this interpretation is important in understanding the English Protestant perspective in persecuting Catholicism, it does not take into account the theological continuation of early modern English Catholicism and the importance of the Pope as the supreme authority of English Catholics, rather than the monarch. This very tenet of political and theological perspective is essential in understanding the larger English Catholic perspective in relation to the concept of hierarchy. John Southworth, a priest who was tried under the Elizabethan Anti-Priest Legislation of 1585, detailed this very criticism of both the government of England as well as the theological subversion of its larger rejection of Catholic hierarchy, “The Angels in Heaven did rebel against God through pride, but how were they punished? Not all the whole Hierarchy of Angels destroyed, but they onely who offended; the other Angels remained still in glory. So I say, if any Catholicks shall offend the Law, and not shew themselves true obedient Subjects, let those who offend be severely punished, and not for one mans particular offence punish all.”(15)  Southworth’s criticism established during his execution speech displays both aspects of the continuation of Catholic hierarchical traditionalism as well as a degree of dissidence in attempting to lobby for a larger liberty of conscience for Catholics throughout the kingdom.

Loyalty versus theology

In attempting to understand the issue of loyalty versus theology it becomes essential to consult the historiographical debates regarding these larger issues. While some scholars contend that the execution of priests stands as an obvious example of state violence exacted in the name of ideological and theological conformity, others argue that the lines were much more blurred and multidirectional than are perceived. Alexandra Walsham provides a framework for this nuanced perspective in attempting to explore the complex nature of persecution and toleration which existed in the world of anti-Catholicism. While the kingdom might have changed from Protestantism to Catholicism, the populace still bore many aspects of traditional beliefs established in the older Church. In this regard, Walsham argues that private consciences did not always match public behavior and many aspects of religion on the ground were treated differently than the larger attitudes established by the government.(16) While some Catholics stood in direct opposition to the political and theological changes present within the structure of England, others attempted to walk a fine line in retaining their religious liberty as well as standing loyal to the English monarchy. The Petition of the Catholic Laity of 1604 established both the grievances with which Catholic citizens believed they were held from the whole of public life due to anti-Catholic legislation as well as their utmost loyalty and reverence for the monarchy,

“We are but halfe men, if men at all, whome in these later dayes and times no man durst defend, countenance, conuerse with, or imploy, and (as your Maiestie hath well saied) we are in deede but halfe subjects, not that our bodies, mindes, willes, wittes, vnderstandinges, sences, memories, judgementes, intentions; or our breathes, bloudes, or liues are deuided, or deuouted to the supreame honour or seruice of any terrene creature, other then your Maiesty only.”(17)

The question of loyalty in the face of a changing political and theological continuum stands as one of the most consequential issues in attempting to understand the larger framework of anti-Catholicism.

In addressing larger questions of loyalty versus theology, the reality of persecution must be deconstructed through diverging frameworks. While the English Kingdom maintained its interests were solely rooted in the crime of treason based upon Catholic loyalty to the papacy rather than the English monarchy, this reasoning constituted an aspect of persecution.

Peter Lake and Michael Questier detail this divergence from both the perspective of the kingdom as well as the multidirectional nature of power which flowed through government, felon, and religious ideology. While outwardly it may appear that all power in these interactions between the government and those who were tried flowed from the direction of the government, Lake and Questier argue that these interactions were not unidirectional in nature.(18) Take for instance, the example provided earlier in the execution and final confession of John Southworth. While it appears the government had the power to monopolize violence and execute Southworth in the name of ideological and theological conformity, the reality that Southworth was allowed a position to argue his perspective in the form of dissidence against the government and the uniformity of religion points to a more nuanced and multidirectional flow of ideological power. The stage for which those executed in the name of religious uniformity were given to address their grievances or repent provides another way of analyzing the interactions between the government, the felon, and religious ideology within a larger continuum.

Protestant perspective

In exploring the larger debates of Catholic persecution, it stands as significant to understand the Protestant perspective in justifying the persecution of priests through the framework of the law. James Balmford details the divergence between what Protestants perceived as secular matters rather than religious, “It is not to be denied, that Priests are executed for affirming the Popes primacy, and reconciling to the pretended Church of Rome, &c. which are points of their supposed religion: But yet they are not executed for these (or like) points or partes as they be religious, but as they be trayterous, or dangerous to the state, in ciuill consideration. For, if Priests were executed for these, or like points, as they be religious, then the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiasticall maner, before the secular power execute ciuill punishment.”(19) This perspective from Balford shows a willingness to view the persecution of priests from a secular perspective relating to the Acts of Supremacy, but also to display a justification for religious persecution, if necessary, in ecclesiastical matters.

While this position stood as the orthodoxy of anti-Catholic persecution throughout the period it was not the only perspective within the public realm of print. Cardinal William Allen professed a defense of the Catholic faith in the face of rising persecution and anti-Catholic laws throughout the Elizabethan period. William Allen’s perspective provided a grounded appraisal against the larger tides of anti-Catholicism. William Allen addresses Catholic persecution directly in attempting to walk a fine line of respecting the monarch but also in lobbying for a greater degree of religious tolerance for Catholics, “We are not so peruerslie affected (God be praised) as purposelie to dishonour our Prince and Countrie, for whos loue in Christ, so manie haue so meeklie lost their liues: or to reueale their turpitude, which we would rather couer (if it were possible) from the eyes of the world with our owne blood: but we set forth the truth of al thes actions, for the honour of our nation, which otherwise to her infinite shame and reproche, would be thought wholie and generallie to haue reuolted from the Catholique faith.”(20) The importance of William Allen’s address stands as a significant aspect of the difficult place Catholics found themselves as subjects in a Protestant kingdom. While some outwardly rejected the authority of the monarch and attempted to rebel through recusancy and mission efforts, others like Allen attempted to walk a fine line in recognizing the authority of the monarch while also defending their perspectives as Catholics.

Anti-Catholic sentiment

Another interesting example of anti-Catholic sentiment can be found in pamphlets relating to the arrest of the Jesuit priest Edmund Campion. In the writings of George Ellyot, the tides of anti-Catholic sentiment are presented clearly in opposition to the ministry and perceived treason of campion, “where like vagrant persons, (refusing to liuewithin the lawful gouernment of their coūtrey) they lead a loose life, wandring & running hither and thither, from shire to shire, and countrey to countrey, with such store of Romish relikes, popish pelfe, trifles & trash, as were able to make any Christian hearte (that hath seene the tryall of such practifes as I haue done) eue for sorrow.”(21) Campion, a English Catholic priest was running a clandestine ministry attempting to facilitate Catholic conversions in Protestant England. Upon arrest for treason as a priest, Campion was tortured and eventually hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. The martyrdom of Edmond Campion stands as a significant aspect of the larger trends of anti-Catholicism established both in theological and political perspective throughout Protestant England.

Through the laws of Elizabeth I, the establishment of anti-Catholicism as a legal and political doctrine throughout England became exceedingly important. The Act of Supremacy of 1559 established Elizabeth as the supreme governor of matters both political and ecclesiastical, creating conflict between English Catholics and the government. The oath of allegiance set forth in the Act of Supremacy created an arm for enforcement in forcing Catholics to conform to the law of the kingdom whether they agreed to or not. Moving from the Act of Supremacy of 1559, the Act of Uniformity unified the Church of England within Protestant philosophy and forced Catholics to either conform to attending Protestant church services or pay fines as punishment for their disobedience. The waves of anti-Catholic legislation culminated in both the Act against Jesuits and Seminarists of 1585, which provided the tools for the persecution of priests, as well as a resolute offense against Catholicism as a continental missionary effort in attempting to win Catholic converts in Protestant England. The trends of rising anti-Catholicism are prevalent when considering the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth’s reign. Elizabeth’s reign represents the most consequential and significant aspect of the broader trends toward anti-Catholicism and religious persecution in post-reformation England.

Still however, the larger political and cultural shifts emanating from John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs remains one of the most important determining factors in understanding English anti-Catholicism as a unifying proto national force. Foxe’s narrative, which established the mythology for English Protestantism, provided the fuel for both conceptions of English Protestant identity as well as persecutions of Catholics on both theological and political grounds. The overarching narrative of innocent Protestants persecuted by papal tyranny provides the grounds for all subsequent Protestant and Catholic conflicts and justifications for persecutions of Catholics. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 builds into the larger national mythos in displaying the divine providence which protected England from the papist invasion of Catholic Spain. While the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 did not represent a decisive military victory, the reality of Spain’s defeat at the hands of stormy weather fueled a larger narrative of Protestant triumphalism against Catholic invaders. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in tandem with the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 as well as the Fatal Vespers disaster of 1623 provide an intriguing and convincing exploration of the conceptions of English proto nationalism tied directly to the currents of anti-Catholicism. While the political and cultural conceptions of Protestantism as a unifying force in the public consciousness of England exists as a significant aspect of the larger trends of anti-Catholicism and religious persecution, the importance of Catholic martyrs cannot be understated. The martyrdom of individuals persecuted through the theological and political framework of Protestant England remains one of the most significant factors in understanding the broader trends toward anti-Catholicism.

Conclusion

Through the writings of martyred priests, such as John Southworth and Edmund Campion, the reality of Catholic persecution can be discerned in a concrete and personal manner. The persecution of Catholic priests stemming from the Elizabethan Anti-Catholic legislation posits a significant aspect of understanding the connection between political and theological anti-Catholic trends. While many of the justifications for persecuting priests such as Southworth and Campion exist within a secular manner, the larger cultural and political changes throughout England point towards a complicated arc of anti-Catholicism based in a mix of political and theological ideology.Throughout this paper, multiple accounts of anti-Catholic sentiment and legal doctrine have been introduced in a manner which attempts to comprehend the nuances of anti-Catholicism as both a theological and a political motivator. While it is impossible to explore every aspect of anti-Catholic sentiment from the reign of Elizabeth onwards, the interrogation of primary and secondary sources provides a larger narrative in understanding the changing political, cultural, and theological consensus throughout England. In compiling this body of research, the goal of attempting to provide a counter narrative in the revisionist tradition remains the foremost objective. By countering the historical Protestant triumphalism of the post-Reformation age with an analysis of the wider currents of anti-Catholicism provides a deeper look at the English Protestant persecution of Catholics. Despite the presentation of the post-reformation Protestant triumph over Catholicism whether from a political or religious standpoint, from the reign of Elizabeth onward, broader trends pointed toward an age of English anti-Catholicism and religious persecution in the name of uniformity. The reality of English anti-Catholicism proves the reality of religious persecution from Protestants to Catholics as well as the institution of anti-Catholicism as a formative and powerful unifying force in the changing conception of English nationhood.

What do you think of anti-Catholicism in early modern England? Let us know below.

Now read Roy’s article on the 1914-23 Armenian Genocide here.

References

1 Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz.,C.1.

2 Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz.,C.1.

3 Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

4 Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

5 Act Against Jesuits and Seminarists, 1585, 27, Eliz., C.2.

6 John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments (London, 1563), 957.

7 O. T., Hargrave “Bloody Mary’s Victims: The Iconography of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 51, no. 1 (1982): 7–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42973872.

8 Lawrence, Stone. “The Armada Campaign of 1588.” History 29, no. 110 (1944): 120–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24401778.

9 Matthew Haviland, A Monument Of Gods Most Gracious Preservation Of England From Spanish Invasion (London, 1635), 1.

10 James I. By The King Whereas Thomas Percy Gentleman, And Some Other His Confederates, Persons Knowen To Be So Vtterly Corrupted With The Superstition Of The Romish Religion (London, 1605), 1.

11 Mark, Nicholls. “Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 787–807. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175128.

12 John Hauiland, The Fatall Vesper (London, 1623), 5.

13 Alexandra, Walsham.“‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-Popery in Late Jacobean London,” Past & Present 144 (1994): 36–87.

14 John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 35-50.

15 John Southworth, The Last Speech And Confession Of Mr. John Sovthworth (London, 1679), 2.

16 Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance And Intolerance In England, 1500-1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 23-30.

17 John Mogar, A Petition Apologeticall (England, 1604), 36.

18 Peter Lake and Michael Questier, “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows,” Past and Present 153 (1996): 65–107.

19 James Balmford, Priests Are Executed Not For Religion, But For Treason (London, 1600), 5.

20 William Allen, A True, Sincere And Modest Defence, Of English Catholiques (Rouen, 1584), 1.

21 George Ellyot, A Very True Report Of The Apprehension And Taking Of That Arche Papist Edmond Campion (London, 1581), 3.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Act Against Jesuits and Seminarists, 1585, 27, Eliz., C.2.

Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.1.

The Act Against Recusants, 1593, 35, Eliz., C.2.

Allen, William. A True, Sincere And Modest Defence, Of English Catholiques. Rouen, 1584.

Balmford, James. Priests Are Executed Not For Religion, But For Treason. London, 1600.

James I. By The King Whereas Thomas Percy Gentleman, And Some Other His Confederates, Persons Knowen To Be So Vtterly Corrupted With The Superstition Of The Romish Religion. London, 1605.

Ellyot, George. A Very True Report Of The Apprehension And Taking Of That Arche Papist Edmond Campion. London, 1581.

Foxe, John. The Acts and Monuments. London, 1563.

Hauiland, John. The Fatall Vesper. London, 1623.

Haviland, Matthew. A Monument Of Gods Most Gracious Preservation Of England From Spanish Invasion. London, 1635.

Mogar, John. A Petition Apologeticall. England, 1604.

Southworth, John. The Last Speech And Confession Of Mr. John Sovthworth. London, 1679.

Secondary Sources

Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

Hargrave, O. T. “Bloody Mary’s Victims: The Iconography of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 51, no. 1 (1982): 7–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42973872.

Nicholls, Mark. “Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 787–807. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175128.

Questier Michael, and Lake Peter “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows,” Past and Present 153 (1996): 65–107.

Stone, Lawrence. “The Armada Campaign of 1588.” History 29, no. 110 (1944): 120–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24401778.

Walsham, Alexandra. Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700, Politics, Culture, and Society in Early Modern Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).

Walsham, Alexandra.“‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-Popery in Late Jacobean London,” Past & Present 144 (1994): 36–87.

James VI/James I’s Love Life: The British King whose Lovers were Men

James VI of Scotland (later also crowned James I of England) is a king of some ambiguity: he was both intellectually wise (possibly one of the cleverest kings that either England or Scotland has had), yet also remarkably foolish in how he allowed his heart to rule his head. But James was not a man of great extremes, unlike his predecessor Queen Elizabeth I, who kept herself virtuously pure, or his grandson, King Charles II, who was an obsessive womanizer. James fell somewhere in the middle, with only three real passionate affairs throughout his life. So why did his love life matter so much?

Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A painting of James VI/James I, c. 1605.

To answer the question of why his love life mattered so much is simple on the face of it: these lovers were men. As historian Lady Antonia Fraser has noted, ‘the degree of their intimacy is less important than its political consequences’[i], because these men rose into positions of unequalled power. For modern historians, the emphasis should not be on their gender, but rather a discussion of their competency and the danger that they posed to the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

Our said dearest son

James VI (1566-1625) was born into the turbulent world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, when murder, assassination and usurpation were the norm. His own father, Lord Darnley, had been murdered when James was less than a year old, probably with the connivance of his mother, the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. Within a few months she was forced to abdicate and flee Scotland, and James would never see her again. Crowned at thirteen months old and raised a Protestant, he became the pawn of successive Regents who, to protect him from kidnap by the next power hungry noble, cocooned him in Stirling Castle with his tutor, George Buchanan, a sadistic disciplinarian. Jock o’ the Slates, as he was known because of his prolific learning, survived his childhood to reach his majority, but he did so in a cold and dangerous world, protected from everyone:

‘Suffer nor admit no noblemen of our realm or any others, of what condition soever they be of, to enter or come within our said Castle or to the presence or our said dearest son, with any more persons but two or three at most.’[ii]

Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox circa 1542-1583

When James first met his cousin in 1579, he was a thirteen-year-old orphan, controlled by dour older men in search of power and governed by the strict guidelines of the Presbyterian Church. Esmé Stuart, on the other hand, was thirty-seven, married with children and fresh from the French court. He was well-travelled, educated, fun and described as ‘of comely proportion, civil behavior, red-bearded, and honest in conversation’[iii]. Whatever James’ sexuality might have been, Esmé dazzled him, bringing light into his studiously lonely world. One contemporary witness noted how James was not ashamed to show his affection for Esmé whenever the moment took him:

‘The King altogether is persuaded and led by him … and is in such love with him as in the open sight of the people often he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him.’

The nobles were concerned, not so much at James’ unabashedly open affection, but rather at what the observer notes first: that the king was persuaded and led by him. Within months, Esmé begun to reap the rewards of his relationship, not only in expensive gifts such as Mary Queen of Scots’ diamond The Great H of Scotland, but more significantly in titles and positions in government. By March 1580, Esmé had been made the Earl of Lennox and was already so powerful that the English Ambassador reported firstly that he ‘carryeth the sway in court’, and then, a few months later, that ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’[iv].

This political influence was dangerous. Lennox was a Catholic in a highly charged Protestant court, where religious civil war constantly threatened the fragile peace. He was rising at the expense of the ancestral nobility, and even his conversion to the Protestant faith in the summer of 1580 could not allay fears that he was a papal agent intent on restoring Mary Queen of Scots’ to the Scottish throne. For James, his renunciation of the Catholic faith only served to deepen his affection for him.[v]Yet, the nobles’ fear seemed justified when, in April 1581 Lennox had the King’s last regent, the Earl of Morton, executed for treason and for having been involved in the murder of the King’s late father. Rather than punishing him, the King made him the Duke of Lennox four months later.

In the volatile world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, James, with his polarized dependence on Lennox, was taking an enormous risk. It could not last, and there was a certain amount of inevitability when the nobles finally took their revenge, kidnapping James whilst he was out hunting in August 1582. The usurpation of the monarch was not without precedent and for the ten months that he was held captive he must have wondered if he was about to suffer his mother’s fate. He would be lucky and survive to escape and reclaim his authority, but one outcome was that, despite resistance and many tears, he was forced to send his favorite into exile. They would never see each other again and Lennox died in France on May 26, 1583 still professing that he had ‘such extreme regret that I desire to die rather than to live, fearing that that has been the occasion of your no longer loving me.’[vi]

In tribute, James would pen the poem Ane Tragedie of the Phoenix, full of deep desire, with Lennox’s name woven into the text[vii], but he would not learn from his close shave with disaster. When in love, James loved passionately, unreservedly, and openly, regardless of the danger to his own person or the stability of his country.

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset circa 1587-1645

There is something lavishly romantic about the way that James (now also King of England) met his next great love, the seventeen-year-old Robert Carr in 1607. Yet of all his relationships, this one proved the most troublesome. 

Carr sparked James’ passionate nature from the outset. He was a remarkably handsome man, described by the Earl of Suffolk as ‘straight-limbed, well-favored, strong-shouldered and smooth-faced…’, and when he fell from his horse at a tilt, James’ elaborate sense of romance caused him to follow the boy to Charing Cross Hospital to ensure his welfare. It was obvious to all from the outset that James was in lust, if not yet in love, and the way that he fussed over the injured boy gave rise to satirical comments by some and false statements of concern by others[viii].

There had been other male favorites since the fall of Lennox, but none had been given the same political power until Carr. James’ passion was once again measured in his generosity and, like Lennox, Carr’s rise was spectacular. He was immediately knighted and then made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber (a role that required him to sleep in the King’s room). Contemporaries reported how James would lustfully kiss, pinch and fondle his favorite in public[ix] and by 1610 he was so powerful that he was able to influence the King into dissolving Parliament. In 1611 he was made Viscount Rochester and in April 1612 James made him a Privy Councillor. It is unlikely that such a rise would have come for free and when Carr was created Lord Chamberlain, James wrote that ‘no man should marvel that he bestowed a place so near himself as his friend, whom he loved above all men living’.

James was again playing with political fire, allowing one man to dominate and influence him as he had with Lennox. In 1613 the Spanish Ambassador reported that, when in Council, Carr:

‘showeth much temper and modesty, without seeming to press and sway anything. But afterwards the King resolveth all business with him alone, both those that pass in Council and many others wherewith he never maketh them acquainted.’

James seems to have learnt nothing from his near escape in 1582, treating Carr as his closest advisor at the detriment of others, despite evidence of his incompetence. He was so detested that even the Queen was keen to see a new man in her husband’s bed. It took fate and Carr’s own conceited insolence to save the two kingdoms, though it would bring James to the edge of personal scandal.

Despite being James’ lover, Carr fell in love with his mistress, Frances Howard, the wife of the Earl of Essex. James was not against his favorites marrying and he openly assisted Carr in having Frances’ first marriage annulled so that she would be free to marry him. The king paid for the wedding and, as a gift, he created the new couple the Earl and Countess of Somerset.

The new earl was still on the rise, and as far as James was concerned, their love was as viable as ever, wife or no wife. But, as well as complimenting him on his looks, the Earl of Suffolk had also noted that Somerset was:

‘…endowed ‘…with some sort of cunning and show of modsty, tho, God wot, he well knoweth when to show his impudence’. 

It was a characteristic that would be Somerset’s downfall, and within a year of the wedding, he had been insolent to the king once too often. James complained to Somerset that he had shown him a ‘strange frenzy’ and ‘strange streams of unquietness, passion, fury and insolent pride and (which is worst of all) with a settled kind of induced obstinacy’[x]. The king was tiring of Somerset’s sullen behavior and, worse still, that he would no longer sleep with him:

‘I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but as a point of unkindness.’

The King warned him that ‘there must be some exterior signs of the amendment of your behavior towards me’, but it was already too late. A key opponent to the Somersets’ wedding had mysteriously died in the Tower of London, and by the summer of 1615 the Countess had been found guilty of his murder. James was damaged by the association; Somerset was his favorite, he had secured the annulment that had allowed them to marry and the country was abuzz with tales of the salacious court. The Somersets were sentenced to death, but James still felt enough for his old favorite to have the sentence commuted to imprisonment. Nevertheless, his passion was gone and the sweet prose to Somerset at the height of his power was replaced with regret:

‘I shall never pardon myself but shall carry that cross to the grave with me, for raising a man so high as might make him presume to pierce my ears with such speeches.’

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham 1592-1628

Where Somerset failed, Villiers succeeded, captivating the King and earning the mantle of his last and perhaps greatest love. His meteoric rise took him through the ranks from knight to earl to marquis in three short years, and in 1623 he was made the Duke of Buckingham.

Though they were together for nine years, James was a man coming to the end of his life. He suffered from gout and, probably, porphyria, the same mental illness that was to later afflict George III. It caused him moments of severe abdominal pain and bouts of senility that left him open to persuasion as never before:

‘The King seems practically lost. He now protests, now weeps, but finally gives in.’

Buckingham was more than willing to take advantage. He was described as having an effeminate countenance and as:

‘the handsomest-bodied in England; his limbs so well compacted and his conversation so pleasing and of so sweet a disposition.’ 

In reality he was also arrogant, incompetent and startling corrupt, but Buckingham was able to satisfy James’ desires as he seems to confirm when he told James that he had been pondering ‘whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham [in 1615], where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog’.

James was repeating his earlier folly, promoting a man of little talent above both his natural station and his intellectual one. It was a position that would put James and his kingdoms yet again in danger. On the domestic front, Buckingham helped to destroy the financial reforms the Earl of Middlesex had been attempting to impose, ensuring that the Earl was finally impeached by Parliament in 1624. When his shady dealings in Ireland were in danger of coming to light in 1621, he nurtured the row between the King and Parliament over the royal prerogative; James prematurely dissolved Parliament and the investigation that would have exposed him was ended.

Buckingham had also managed to gain control of foreign policy, at which he was also incompetent. Against his better judgment, in 1623 James allowed his heir, Charles, to travel with Buckingham to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. The negotiations that the duke led were so calamitous that they came close to making the Prince a hostage to the Spanish. When the party returned, Buckingham hid his humiliation by calling for a patriotic Protestant war on Spain. Two years later, to again restore his own popularity, he led a doomed raid to help the Huguenots in France. And finally, as the king neared death, he instigated a military campaign to recover the Electorate of the Palatinate, which quickly dissolved into yet another disaster. 

But ‘sweete Steenie’, as the King called Buckingham, could do no wrong, even during the disastrous trip to Spain when the pain of being parted from him was forefront in James’ mind:

‘…god blesse thee my sweete Steenie and sende thee a quikke and happie return with my sweete babie [Prince Charles who was 22], in the armes of thy deare dade and stewarde.’ 

As he sunk into senility, James needed love, whatever form that took. In one of his most famous letters, where he calls Buckingham both his wife and his child, he shows us that the thought of being without him was unbearable:

‘…I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.’

He would cling to Buckingham until the end, whatever the cost.

Neither a God nor an angel

James made many of the classic mistakes in his relationships with his favorites and that his lovers were men meant that they were able to hold political positions, such as Privy Councillor, Lord Chamberlain and Treasurer of Scotland, which a female mistress could not. He promoted them far above their natural station, allowed them to influence him in matters of Church and State, and listened to them at the detriment of his ‘natural’ advisors, the nobility.

Yet, ultimately, the main problem was that James’ men were not right for the positions they held. He chose them for their looks and their flattery, not for their competence. They were greedy and unfit for the roles he gave them. They influenced him into decisions the canny King, who had survived so much as a child, should not have made, often putting himself and his kingdoms at risk of not only being financially milked but also of war. But when in love, James loved passionately and loyally:

‘I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore, I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here, assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.’

What do you think of James VI/I’s lovers? Let us know below.

Now, you can read about whether King James VI/I’s predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, was really the ‘Virgin Queen’ here.

[i] Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, p126

[ii] Mary Queen of Scots to the Earl of Mar, March 29, 1567

[iii] Rictor Norton, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, January 8, 2000, updated January 9, 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

[iv] Stedall, Robert,  Esme Stuart 1st Duke of Lennox

[v] Bergeron, David M, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999, p38

[vi] December 18, 1582 in Bergeron, pp49-50

[vii] Bergeron, p53; Murphy, Samantha A Writing Britain: James VI & I and the National Body

[viii] Fraser, p126

[ix] Fraser, p126

[x] Stewart, Alan, The Cradle King: a life of James VI and I, Pimlico, London, 2009, p266

Bibliography

Bergeron, David M. King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999

Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, 1984

Norton, Rictor, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, 8 January 2000, updated 9 January 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

Stewart, Alan The Cradle King: a life of James VI & I, Pimlico, London, 2009

Wikipedia: Personal relationships of James VI and I

Was Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot actually a secret, Protestant-led conspiracy?

In this series on the English Civil War, Myra King follows up on her articles about the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, by telling us about the Gunpowder Plot. Was it really carried out by Guy Fawkes or was there a conspiracy led by somebody who thought that King James I was too tolerant towards Catholics?

“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunfire treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunfire treason should ever be forgot,”

I do.

On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes and his twelve co-conspirators put the final nail in the Catholic coffin. Their idea had been to use thirty-six barrels of gunpowder to blow the British Parliament sky high. Their plan was to kill the king, kidnap his nine-year-old daughter, force her into Catholicism, and crown her their dummy queen. The king, James I, had caused great disappointment in the tiny Catholic community by refusing to reinstate the old denomination. Under James I’s predecessor, Elizabeth I, Catholics had lived safely enough but had been fined for practicing their illegal religion. James had abolished these fines, creating a more tolerant kingdom. But juggling all the different strands of Christianity eventually became too much for the king and he abandoned his tolerant attitude. Catholics, as well as Puritans, were to be fined for practicing anything but Protestantism. They were now also banned from obtaining degrees, holding certain jobs, and sitting in parliament. Sure, they were the minority, and if they really wanted, Catholics could practice in secret, but there would always be troublemakers. Thirteen to be exact.

A depiction of plotter Guy Fawkes from "Guy Fawkes - The Fifth of November a Prelude in One Act." The play was performed in 1793 at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, London.

A CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE GUNDPOWER PLOT?

According to legend, the plotters rented a house next to parliament and carried thirty-six barrels of gunpowder down to the cellar where the explosives expert, Guy Fawkes, was waiting to light the fuse and send the building to that great fireworks display on the other side. But as luck would have it, the cellar was searched the night before and our pyrotechnist was found. He was tortured and confessed the whole plot. He and his cohorts were then executed.

That is the famous version of the story. Many modern historians believe it to be far more sinister than that though.

Firstly, let us go back to James’s predecessor, Elizabeth. The Tudor lady wasn’t necessarily queenly material. In fact she had a foul temper and very bad manners. But something she did have was the knowledge to put others in charge of areas she knew nothing about. One such man was Robert Cecil, her chief advisor. Cecil was a brilliant politician (but not in the utterly-useless-but-hides-it-well way); he knew how to run a kingdom like a well-oiled machine. England was the envy of Europe under his (er, Elizabeth’s) reign.

Cecil had the grave misfortune of outliving Elizabeth though, and this meant that he had to mold himself to the new king. Unlike Lizzie, James had always been heir to a throne, therefore always groomed for a life of leadership. As an already ruling king of Scotland, James arrived with no need for advisers either. Cecil had to retreat to the shadows, but James’s tolerant attitude to Catholics was more than Cecil could bear. Unlike the new king, Cecil knew of the violent religious history of England and he knew that it was just a matter of time before all hell broke loose in the kingdom. Religious freedom could not be allowed, as the extremists would always take it too far. And Guy Fawkes proved Cecil’s fear.

Supposedly.

The information surrounding the gunpowder plot does not add up however. How would known Catholics have been able to rent a house right next to parliament? That was illegal. How would they have even gotten the barrels of gunpowder into parliament? Surely they couldn't have just walked in. CCTV didn't exist yet but the idea of having no security at parliament is absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention, from where did they get this gunpowder? The only people to sell gunpowder would have been the government. Why would the government have sold thirty-six barrels of gunpowder to known Catholics? Unless the government - most notably William Cecil - wanted these Catholics to have gunpowder. It was no secret that King James was terrified for his safety. As the only heir of Mary, Queen of Scots, he had seen his fair share of death threats and even a kidnapping. So what would happen if somebody decided to use that fear against him? Could Cecil have orchestrated the entire plot in order to demonstrate how dangerous and untrustworthy Catholics were? Could he have hired the thirteen men, given them the idea of the plot and the gunpowder, and then simply waited for the end result? Cecil was no longer in charge, so if he wanted something done, he would have to find another way to do it. It is at least very suspicious that Cecil constantly talked about the danger of Catholicism, ‘miraculously’ the king was almost killed by Catholics, and suddenly Cecil’s word was law... Could he have staged it all?

THE PLOT THICKENS

The most damning of all the evidence is, I think, the ‘Monteagle Letter.’ One of the plotters, Francis Tresham, was a cousin with a man named Lord Monteagle. On October 26 a mysterious stranger came through the night bringing a letter to the Lord’s home. A letter with a very dark message. It was a warning to Monteagle that under no circumstances was he to go to Parliament on November 5. It simply, and without embarrassment, stated that parliament would receive a blow and all present would be killed. This letter was personally addressed to Monteagle but instead of reading it in private as protocol dictated, he had his servant read it out loud. Why was this done? And how, oh how, did Monteagle just magically have a letter delivered by a servant who could actually read? That alone is a bit of magic as this was a time when only the wealthy could read. Was the “servant” put in place to read aloud so that Monteagle had a witness? Does this mean Monteagle knew what the letter contained? Well, it is rather interesting when you take Monteagle’s next action on board... The Lord then took the letter straight to (surprise, surprise) William Cecil. Why him? Cecil then ordered a search of parliament and, low and behold, Guy Fawkes was found.

Tresham appears with more conspiracy later in the plot. Technically it is his fault the co-conspirators were caught. But while Guy Fawkes and the rest of the plotters were tortured to reveal information and then hanged, drawn and quartered, Tresham was simply locked in the Tower of London. Why? He was also locked in the cell by himself and was later found dead. Official records state he was poisoned. Who had poisoned him and why? Tresham obviously had vital information that spared him the wrack and the noose, but ultimately cost him his life. Was that information the damning truth of the so-called gunpowder plot?

Whether you believe the gunpowder plot was an inside job or you believe it truly was just another act of religious hatred, the fact still remains that this plot showed the scary depth of religious hatred and lack of love for the monarch. The gunpowder plot was just one more step closer to a war against the king and all who stood for him.

We continue our story of the English Civil War and problems with King Charles I here.

Finally, if you enjoyed the article, tell your friends! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking the buttons below!

Henry VIII and Bloody Religious Change – First Steps to the English Civil War

In this article, Myra King follows up on her article about the Divine Right of Kings, by telling us about religious conflict in Henry VIII’s England. As we will see, this conflict would continue to simmer beneath the surface well into the 1600s; indeed, it would be a major factor in the English Civil War.

Once upon a time in a land far, far away, a regal king met the woman of his dreams. He instantly knew he had to marry her and make her his Queen. The only problem with this plan… He was already married.

When Henry VIII came across Anne Boleyn, he was already in his fourteenth year of marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Divorce was the only option. Unfortunately the pope refused to grant him one. After nearly seven years of fighting the Vatican, Henry got his Tudor breeches in a twist and decided to break away from the Roman Catholic Church. He established the Church of England, making himself the leader and instated the newly formed denomination, Protestantism. This was no simple decision as Catholicism had been the official religion of England since the Romans had brought it over one thousand years earlier. The people of England had had their faith ripped out from underneath them and they had no way to fight it. Henry’s decision to break with Rome did not end at the peaceful renaming of churches. Henry introduced an act called “The Reformation” and that was far from peaceful. Thomas Cromwell and Henry’s goons ransacked over eight hundred monasteries, literally stripping them of everything from their lead roofs, to their golden candlesticks and valuable books. The lucky monks were thrown into the street. The rest were executed for refusing to comply. The reformation brought in a ton of gold for Henry and a ton of misery for everyone else. Many of those who revolted against this act were murdered. Not only the rebellious men, but their wives and even small children were left swinging from ropes.

A strange fruit left to rot in the fields. 

King Henry VIII of England by Lucas Horenbout (c. 1526)

It wasn’t only the peasants who met their untimely deaths in the reformation. Several of Henry’s own politicians were sent for the chop. Not to mention the fact that women were subjected to torture on the rack. An act unheard of before the tyrant Henry and his church.

There was nothing peaceful about this religious change. Many suffered at the newborn hands of the Church of England. This was the start of the religious wars that would plague the country for over a century. The people of England now became the unfortunate pawns in this genocide. And they had no way to fight back.

THE END OF THE KING

In 1547, Henry finally succumbed to whatever ailment had killed him (it is heavily debated), leaving his nine-year-old son, Edward VI, as king. Edward, having been born and bred a Protestant, kept the kingdom as his father had left it. But Edward was a sickly boy and at the tender age of fifteen he was dead and buried. This left his elder sister, Mary I, as queen. Mary’s bloodlust and stupidity is almost stomach turning. Her first act as queen was to undo the reformation and return England to the Vatican. Bad idea. By this point, the Church of England was the only religion the young English knew. They had been schooled by Henry and Edward to read the bible, now Mary burned them for it. They had been taught that prayers were private, and the vanity and abuse of the Catholic Church were not their god’s doing. Mary burned them for questioning the Vatican. Mary’s second mistake was to marry her cousin, Philip of Spain. He was a money and power hungry Catholic who was anything but popular among the English. Mary had been warned by her government that marriage to Philip would be political suicide. But she did not heed their warning. And so, Philip brought his hand in marriage as well as his need to conquer an unconquerable land – France.

England owned one town in France, Calais, a town close to England on the French coast. Philip wanted more. Mary’s government begged her not to go to war with the French. England was in trouble, you see; it had done nothing but rain during Mary’s reign. The crops were ruined. There would be no food for the following year. England needed her money in order to buy food from the French. They couldn’t use that money for war. Mary would not listen though. England not only lost the war with France, but also Calais – a town that could have produced food for them.

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

In Mary’s five short years as Queen she undid the horror that her father had done; all Henry VIII’s crimes against his people had been for nothing. She burned every Protestant she could find in a land completely Protestant. She married an unpopular fool and sent her army to their deaths to do his bidding. She lost French territory. She did nothing as her country flooded and starved to death. She earned herself the nickname “Bloody Mary” and is known as the most useless monarch England has ever had. All in the name of religion. Once again, the English people were the wretched victims of a monarch’s unholy obsession with their own religious ideas. More than three hundred Protestants were burned at the stake so that she could purge the country of the religion her father had killed nearly fifty-seven thousand people to introduce.

Mary died childless in 1558, leaving her half-sister as queen. Elizabeth quickly changed the country back to Protestantism. And the only people who needed to fear the stake were the corrupt Catholic priests. No one mourned for them; no one mourned the loss of Catholicism. Her memory lives on as one of the greatest leaders in English history; she has no connection to religious genocide. Her father and sister live in infamy as atrocious monarchs hated by the people. And besides their laughable marriages, all they are known for is the suffering their religious beliefs caused. Could it be a coincidence that one is adored while the other two are abhorred?

Elizabeth died childless in 1603 and left the throne to her cousin’s son, the king of Scotland – James VI of Scotland. England’s first fear was that the Catholic king would bring his dreaded religion to England and that there would be a repeat of Mary’s or Henry’s reign. Luckily James had some smarts and left his religion in Edinburgh castle. He became James I of England and brought with him, not one, but two sons. This officially ended the Tudor dynasty and the fears of succession that Henry’s questionable virility and his childless children brought to the table. James walked a fine line though. He believed in the Divine Right of Kings that meant he answered to no one but his god. He believed it was his right to do and say whatever he wanted. The English soon got a tad sick of this behavior. He must have known the dangerous dance he was partaking in. After two cruel monarchs who hid behind the thin guise of religion to commit their atrocities, religion was now top of the suspicion list. Every pro-Catholic move James made, he put his life on the line. Equally, every anti-Catholic move he made he put himself and his family in danger.

If James wasn’t aware of the danger he was in, the Gunpowder plot definitely showed him.

I don’t think James I ever failed to remember the 5th of November.

And that's for next time...

The next article in the series is on King James I and a conspiracy related to the Gunpowder Plot. Click here to read it!

Now, if you enjoyed the article, tell your friends! Tweet, like or share it by clicking the buttons below!

References

• Who’s Who in British History by Juliet Gardiner
• British History by Miles Kelly
• Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary
• Terrible Tudors by Terry Deary