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.

Just why do we Love the Tudor Dynasty?

The Tudor Dynasty ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, Wales and Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. It remains one of the periods of British history people are most fascinated by and includes two of the greatest and most famous – or in one case infamous – monarchs: King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Here, Victor Gamma explains why we continue to love the Tudors so much.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England, 1542. By Hans Holbein.

In the recesses of a magnificent palace, a man enters a rich chamber. He is wearing a doublet of blue and red velvet. It is lined with cloth of gold in addition to purple satin embroidered with gold. Underneath is a white silk shirt, frilled at the neck and wrists. His lithe movements betray an athletic tendency. All in all, he is a magnificent sight. He smiles as a woman enters. Her lustrous, black hair is only partially hidden by a gable hood with pinned up lappets and a hanging veil. Her jet-black eyes are set in a face that is not stunningly beautiful but rather handsome, of an olive complexion. It is his mistress. The man is married but his wife will not grant him a divorce. The scandal has become not only the talk of the court, but the talk of Europe. The couple embraces. The lady’s eyes, always expressive, sparkle under her lover’s passionate attention. After a moment of flirtation, the discussion turns serious. An argument ensues. She presses him to know when his divorce will finally come through. He is evasive and grows irritated. Her fiery temper gets the better of her and she lashes out, “It has been three years and we are no nearer the promised betrothal than we were then. I could have contracted an advantageous marriage by this time! I am about to turn 30.” The man, feeling the pressure of being caught between a stubborn wife and a nagging mistress, rushes out of the room in a huff. This is not a scene from a soap opera or made-for-TV historical drama. It is one of many real-life incidents in the life of the Tudors, and it is one element that makes this dynasty provide such rich fodder for an ever-adoring audience.  

In 1603 Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudors, died without an heir. Her successor, James I, was proclaimed king within eight hours. He set about immediately on a triumphant procession from Scotland to take the throne he had coveted so long. Even in this honeymoon period, though, signs appeared that anyone hoping for a continuation of the great Tudor administrations was in for a disappointment. At Newark, a thief was caught in the act and James ordered him to be executed without a trial. This was but once instance in which James displayed his utter lack of knowledge regarding English customs. He also brought with him a penchant for lecturing, a feature which did not endear him to those who suffered through them, including Parliament. The excellent rapport Elizabeth had nurtured with Parliament soured. He made peace with Spain, and deprived Englishmen of the popular enemy. Before long many an English heart yearned for the days of Gloriana, the Sea Dogs and the great victory over the Armada. Since that time, the Tudors, especially the gigantic personality of Henry VIII, have been celebrated in every media imaginable. The author has observed this phenomenon throughout his own lifetime. In childhood I learned the cut of the beautiful 15th century court costumes from  “Anne of a Thousand Days,” and “A Man for All Season.” Then as an adolescent I grew up on the outstanding BBC productions on “The Six Wives of Henry VIII,” and “Elizabeth R.” Down to our own times I have observed the success of the television series “The Tudors.” On any visit to Barnes and Noble, a lavishly illustrated book on the Tudors is almost certain to greet your eyes. Why this on-going obsession with a dynasty that died out over 400 years ago? Diverse elements serve to explain the perennial love affair with a long-past British dynasty. 

Made for television?

The Tudors were made for the camera. First, the Tudor dynasty was full of colorful characters and dramatic events; Henry VIII and his six wives.... fierce religious controversy.... the tragic tale of Lady Jane Grey... the great intelligence of Elizabeth I and the artistic accomplishments of her reign… Bloody Mary… Drake and Hawkins...Shakespeare, the list goes on. It doesn’t hurt that the sixteenth century was a pivotal time for Britain. During that bursting-at-the-seams hundred-year period, England transitioned from the medieval world to the modern. Most notably it marked the end of the Catholic Church in England. A new spirit of confidence and patriotism swept the country. Great naval exploits began the great English seafaring tradition. Whether as pirates, officers or explorers, Elizabethan sailors controlled the seas. And besides the political and religious changes, the Tudors themselves were interesting and complex people.

The Tudors have everything an audience could want; Passion, sex, power, conflict and strong characters. In the passion department, Henry VIII made up for his descendants shortcomings. Not only did he have six wives, he found time to carry on affairs with a variety of mistresses. A costume drama at its best, who can resist an alluring woman dressed up in full Renaissance regalia? But it wasn’t just its plentiful supply of love-interest. Henry wasn’t the only monarch with an over-active libido, Charles II’s reign also consisted of basically one royal fling after another. But Charles lacks the personal magnetism of Henry and only had one wife. Every school child knows that Henry VIII had six wives, and many can name at least some of them. But who remembers the name of Charles II’s wife?

Additionally, everyone loves drama. Even today, the royal-watching media feeds on one main narrative to keep its audience enthralled: dysfunction! Many other monarchs had devoted and sedate family lives which do not make for tantalizing reading or viewing. In fact they can be downright dull. What attracts people is the sensational and extraordinary. The Tudors possessed enough dysfunction to keep tabloids, if they had existed at the time, busy forever. Here we have a man with a succession of six wives, each of which provided her own tantalizing drama: two are beheaded, one dies in childbirth, one is tossed aside, but the king, ever the courtier, allows her a palace and a castle to live out her days, and one nurses him in his old age. After Henry we have a sickly youth, Edward VI, who is so nervous he throws up when he is proclaimed king. After a brief reign he tries, on this deathbed, to disinherit his own sister from the throne. He is followed by a queen who reigned for a grand total of nine days before her overthrow and execution. Her successor, Mary, spends most of her reign pining over her un-besotted (and absent) husband, burning heretics and trying to destroy everything her father tried to accomplish. Finally comes Elizabeth. She did the unthinkable and refused to marry during her long reign. She became the target of countless schemes and a succession of courtships, but survived everything to become one of the most praised rulers in English history. And of course, constant intrigue surrounded these events. 

Henry VIII

Let’s focus for a while on the most famous, or infamous, Tudor, Henry VIII. Britain today still bears his imprint. The England Henry VIII left behind in 1547 was much different than the one he inherited in 1509. This can be seen physically in the ruined shells of the monasteries that dot the English countryside, reflecting the turbulence of Henry's reign. It can also be seen in the monarchy's titles of fidei defensorand Supreme Head of the Church of England. Additionally, until recently, "Britannia rules the waves" was a reality largely as the result of Henry's labors. His work to build up England’s power at sea earned him the name “Father of the English Navy.” “Fortress England” also began to emerge in reaction to the threat of invasion. Medieval England was torn to shreds in the hands of this giant personality and thrust kicking and screaming into the modern age. The forces of change he unleashed became the dominant themes upon which Edward and Elizabeth built and Mary tried to destroy. Since England was to export its culture to the far corners of the globe, Henry's actions not only changed the course of English history, but affected the whole world. 

The spiritual landscape of England is ax§lso greatly reflective of Henry's will. The Anglican Church displays Henry's wish as a middle way between Catholicism and extreme evangelicalism. So passionate was he in his conviction that his subjects were united religiously that he gave in to tears when addressing Parliament. The division of Ireland into Protestant and Catholic realms began with Henry's attempt to establish the Reformation in that land. The break with Rome and subsequent events led to a growing anti-Catholic feeling which became increasingly identified with English nationalism. The critical event in this development was Henry's initial break from the Roman church. The Reformation that Henry began and established by law in the form of the Acts of Appeals and Six Articles. This has been called a 'revolution in jurisdiction.' The fundamental relationship between church and state was changed. The freedom of the church from secular jurisdiction, traced back to the Magna Carta and beyond, was shattered. All religious matters would now become a parliamentary concern under the authority of the king-in-parliament - in particular, the dissolution of the monasteries brought huge changes throughout the countryside. 

American connection – And success

Also, Americans are keenly aware that under Elizabeth, the first stumbling but bold efforts to establish an empire in the US took place. Those fly-speck beachheads would grow to a mighty torrent in the following generations. We know that although the first permanent English settlement would not be established until after the last Tudor died, it was this dynasty that started the process. Americans feel a special kinship with the Tudors for that reason. The story of the English-speaking United States really begins with names like Raleigh, Drake, and Hawkins.

Moreover, they were successful. They contained not one but TWO of the greatest royal administrators in history: Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I (by the way, Henry VII, who started it all, was not a bad ruler as well!). The previous dynasties had too many ups and downs. The Hanoverians are known for losing America. Later dynasties don’t count because they had no real power. No one considered the House of Stuart successful by any stretch. Everyone loves a winner and the Tudors fit the bill and then some. With a small bodyguard and no standing army, they maintained and expanded the respect and power of the monarchy, preserved the peace, held their own against the best diplomacy and military Europe could throw at them, and guided the nation through changes that destroyed others. A comparison with France will shed some light on the measure of their success. France suffered from decades of cruel religious wars. While Britain, despite even more drastic change, experienced very little upheaval. The political and administrative skills of the Tudor monarchs are admired even today. Monarch and parliament enjoyed a stable and workable relationship. The development of a national consciousness, or 'Englishness', developed throughout the sixteenth-century.

The appetite for exploring the intriguing characters of “Bluff King Hal,” “Bloody Mary,” and “Gloriana” shows little sign of abating. So brace yourselves for the next Tudor drama, it's sure to come soon!

What do you think of the Tudors? Let us know below.

If you want to learn more about the Tudors, read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: Was she Really the 'Virgin Queen'?

Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603; reign as Queen 1558-1603) was a child of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and remains one of the most famous English monarchs.

Nicknamed Gloriana, and reigning for nearly fifty years, Queen Elizabeth is important in British history. However, why was this queen so adamantly against her supposed monarchical duties of providing an heir? And why was she so infamously portrayed as the ‘virgin queen’? Hannah Rooney looks at the rumors and explains why she really may have been a ‘virgin queen’.

Queen Elizabeth I Ddancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Bisley boy

Elizabeth’s lack of an heir makes her an intriguing subject of discussion. Ranging on varying aspects of absurdity, one conspiracy was begun by the author of the novel Dracula, Bram Stoker. Allegedly, on visiting a small English town named Bisley, Stoker found out that on May Day, the traditional ‘May Queen’ would be dressed as a boy (rather than a white gown and crown), and upon research, Stoker uncovered the story of the ‘Bisley boy’.  This said that during bouts of the plague, a young Elizabeth was sent to the town for security and safety. However, she became deathly ill and supposedly died whilst there. Known for his wild temperament and tendency to sentence, Elizabeth’s governess, terrified, frantically searched for a resembling girl, but only came across a young boy of the same age and some likeness. When Henry came to visit, the deception had worked. As a rather cold father, he was distant and visited infrequently, and in combination with Elizabeth’s usual shyness toward her father, the secret was kept. Over 300 years later, whilst undergoing building work, a stone coffin was found with the body of a young girl in an Elizabethan dress. In the years after this, there were other signs towards this theory. Furthermore, her tutor Robert Ascham described her as being “endued with a masculine power.” Her striking use of wigs and thick, white makeup which would take hours to apply is also used as an indicator, as it was said she would not be seen without it unless to her servants and maids. Even in her dying moments, she was adamant she would not receive an autopsy. 

This theory is widely used as to why she would never marry. However, it has many faults-Elizabeth was inspected by doctors to ensure that her ‘child bearing’ abilities were adequate, to which the results were affirmative. Furthermore, a potential suitor, Philip II of Spain, had asked of her fertility to her laundress, having heard rumors, who reported with a wide indication of menstruation. Arguably, it is a misogynistic perspective used to imply that a woman of the 1500s could not be so powerful, so must have been a man, and her masculine features and perspectives towards leadership are supposed ‘evidence’.

Lord Robert Dudley

The ideas do not end here, though. Supposedly, the ‘virgin queen’ may not have been virtuous at all. Lord Robert Dudley, born in June 1532, befriended Elizabeth during the reign of Queen Mary I, a time of impending danger for the young Elizabeth, and on Elizabeth’s ascension in 1558, she appointed him master of her horse, and the two remained close at court, often dancing, horse riding, and hunting. Dudley was married to Lady Amy Robsart Dudley; she was almost never in court, with Dudley’s bedchambers moved next to Elizabeth’s private rooms for their meetings. In 1587, after rumors swirling around the country viciously, a man named Arthur Dudley arrived at Philip II’s court in Spain and claimed to be the illegitimate child of Dudley and Elizabeth. His supposed conception in 1561 was eerily linked to the time Elizabeth had been bedridden with an illness which had resulted in her body “swelling.” Matters were made worse for the supposed couple when in 1560, Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in her residency, at the bottom of a flight of stairs with a broken neck, the circumstances for which were regarded as suspicious - and Robert Dudley felt the brunt of it. For almost 50 years, their relationship was filled with turmoil, yet Elizabeth always described him as her ‘sweet Robin’, and had accordingly been brought to tears for several years after his death in 1588, upon anyone saying his name. So perhaps she never married due to a sweet childhood romance, a lost case of love, though she solemnly swore on her deathbed that ‘nothing unseemly had ever passed between them.’ No physical evidence accounts for otherwise too. 

A real Virgin Queen?

Most notably, Queen Elizabeth could have actually been a “virgin queen.” Her complex relationship with her father likely had a large impact on her chastity - losing her own mother at two years old to the hands of her father would have had an inevitable impact on the young girl, particularly being indoctrinated with the wild accusations and defamation against her own mother, as a ‘witch’ and ‘conspirator.’ Her stepmother, Catherine Howard, who was allegedly very warm and kind to Elizabeth, suffered the same fate of execution via beheading. Elizabeth was just eight at the time, and supposedly uttered, that she would ‘never marry.’ Her perspective likely linked matrimony to ideas of pain, loss and death.

Personally, I see it in the sense that it was a choice made by Elizabeth. There was a deep requirement for marriage during her reign and she knew it: being an unwed queen held her at an incredible risk of losing credibility as a ruler, especially with rival Mary, Queen of Scots, announcing her pregnancy and eventually conceiving a young boy, who would become King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. And it wasn’t like opportunity was sparse: countless suitors presented themselves, such as Philip II of Spain, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Prince Eric of Sweden, and a plethora more. To me, it is likely that the incredibly intelligent and sharp queen disliked the idea of sharing her own political power, or risking her country with dependency on others. She cunningly used the incessant possibility of her hand in marriage as an opportunity to prevent uprisings and ensure increasingly civil foreign affairs. Devoted and unwavering, Queen Elizabeth remained, ultimately, ‘married to her country.’

All of these speculations will fly around for the rest of history, but what’s more inspiring to believe? A queen, defiant of societal constructs and unwilling to conform to 16th century stereotypes - that sounds pretty amazing to me. Throughout her father’s inevitable dismissal, determination for a male heir and half sister Mary’s doomed marriage, Elizabeth proved to be a successful and hearty leader, without the need of a man, and arguably, even for her rival and cousin, Queen Mary, she proved the misogynistic John Knox incorrect on his views of female monarchs. The perfect summary would be her Tilbury speech to the troops for the Spanish Armada: ‘I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too [..] we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.’

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth I of England never married? Let us know below.

Why did Queen Elizabeth I of England Never Marry?

Queen Elizabeth I of England is often seen as one of England’s greatest monarchs. The last of the Tudor monarchs, she strengthened England and her reign became known as a Golden Age. But, despite being the last in the Tudor line, Elizabeth never married. In an extended article, we focus on the life of Elizabeth before she became Queen, including her relationship with her father Henry VIII’s wives, and how this influenced her decision to never marry.

See past Tudor history writing from the author on King Henry VIII’s son, Edward VI (here), the person who could have been king instead of Henry VIII (here), and on whether the reign of Mary I was a failure (here).

A portrait of Queen Elizabeth I of England that commemorates the 1588 English victory against the Spanish Armada.

“Good Queen Bess,” “Gloriana,” or most controversial of all, “The Virgin Queen,” was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor but also one of the most famous and influential. Her 44-year reign oversaw a glorious transformation of a politically and religiously unstable nation into one of the Great Powers in Europe and was subsequently referred to as England’s Golden Age. 

Yet, behind her achievements and beneath her façade, Elizabeth Tudor is a woman we still know little of in personal regards. One of the greatest questions pertaining to her personal life is why this great queen never married. Historians have debated and speculated the reasons why this is with conflicting answers. 

The closest reasons lay most clearly in her early life from her ill-fated mother, her quick-tempered father, and a predatory stepfather. Reasons both personal and political may have disenchanted Elizabeth from a tender age to defy centuries of English history’s expectation of a married monarch, even more so of a female monarch.

The unwelcome birth

The birth of a girl, Elizabeth, in September 1533 was a disappointment to her father, King Henry VIII of England, possibly the “worst” disappointment of his life according to Tudor historian Heather Sharnette of Elizbabethi.org. Henry had done the unthinkable in contemporary times by breaking from the Church of Rome and defying the Pope that had refused to annul his marriage to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry his mistress, the dazzling Anne Boleyn. In his defiance, he had destroyed monasteries and abbeys and put to death loyal friends for defending their faith, only to be given what he already had, a daughter. There was little celebration for her birth and the magnificent Christening that had been planned for the longed for baby prince went ahead anyway.

As long as Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn, was Queen of England, Elizabeth was treated as the most important person in England, only second to her father and was even proclaimed “princess,” the title to the heiress to the throne. However, this was only short-lived as Queen Anne could not produce any more surviving children. Henry’s passionate love for her had died down. Her sharp tongue, fiery intelligence, and stubbornness that had initially appealed to him began to irritate him. After Catherine of Aragon’s death in January 1536 and the subsequent miscarriage of a boy, Henry was free to dispose of Anne without facing petitions to return to Catherine. Only four months later, Anne was arrested and faced trumped up charges of witchcraft, adultery, and incest. Not surprisingly, she was found guilty and sent to the Tower of London where she was to await her penalty: death. 

The decision to die via burning or decapitation was up to Henry who chose the latter and showed a single streak of mercy towards the woman he once loved by granting her request to be executed by sword instead of the customary axe. Anne was beheaded on May 19, 1536 on Tower Green. Elizabeth was only two and a half years old.

After her mother’s death

The death and disgrace of her mother left little Elizabeth’s lifestyle greatly changed. She was probably far too young to be emotionally affected by her mother’s execution. The marriage between her father and mother was annulled and Elizabeth was declared a bastard with her title of Princess stripped from her. From a young age, Elizabeth took after her mother’s shrewd intelligence and remarked on the change upon her: “How haps it governor, yesterday my Lady Princess, today but my Lady Elizabeth?” 

Just eleven days after her mother’s execution, Henry married her lady-in-waiting, Jane Seymour. With Elizabeth’s new status, her governess found that the little girl’s needs were being ignored even writing to the king to ask him to send for more clothes as Elizabeth had grown out of everything. 

In October of 1537, after twenty-eight years and two wives, Henry finally sired the longed for son, Prince Edward VI. Only a few days later, Jane Seymour died and the king was crushed at her loss. Now Edward, like Elizabeth, would grow up motherless and the two would share a close bond grounded on age proximity, religion, and their mutual passion for learning. Though Elizabeth was on friendly terms with her half-sister, Mary, the sisters were never close. This relationship would dangerously sour for Elizabeth in later years. 

Following the death of Jane Seymour and Henry’s emergence from seclusion, marriage negotiations began once again on behalf of the king’s fiercely Protestant advisors, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, who maneuvered Henry to marry the mildly Protestant Duke of Cleves’ sister, Anne. They were married in January 1540 after an awkward, disastrous first meeting. Elizabeth now had a second stepmother and according to Italian historian, Gregorio Leti, who wrote the following account two centuries after the event occurred of Elizabeth writing to her father for permission to meet her new stepmother, Anne of Cleves. Anne, upon giving the letter to her husband, Henry “took the letter and gave it to Cromwell” ordering him to write a reply: “Tell her,” he remarked. “that she had a mother so different from this woman that she ought not to wish to see her.” There is controversy as to whether this is true but Elizabeth was eventually brought to Court from Herford Castle to meet Anne. 

Anne, in turn, was reportedly “charmed by her beauty, wit and… that she conceived the most tender affection for her,” and to have Elizabeth “for her daughter would have been greater happiness to her than being queen.” Henry, on the other hand, was not sharing the sentimental atmosphere; as soon as he endured a wedding he could not evade, he become resolute on obtaining a divorce. Six months later, he finally achieved this upon the discovery of a previous marriage contract (but no marriage) to the Duke of Lorraine and on the grounds of non-consummation (the reason being her cruelly remarked appearance). 

King Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne of Cleves was his shortest and least influential marriage but no doubt it may have had the most profound impact on young Elizabeth by this time. She was probably too young to be deeply affected by the deaths of her mother and first stepmother, but by the time Anne of Cleves appeared into her life, she was almost seven years old and better able to comprehend the functions of Court life and her father’s effect on them. Anne was the first stepmother Elizabeth had formed a notable bond with and upon the king’s second divorce, Anne had requested of the king permission to still see Elizabeth which the king agreed to. This bond would remain strong between the two ladies until Anne’s death in 1557. Anne of Cleves was considered the luckiest of Henry VIII’s wives.  Anne’s influence of her stepdaughter’s unmarried state was once supposedly referenced by Queen Elizabeth herself to Count Feria, the Spanish Ambassador, who said that she had “taken a vow to marry no man whom she has not seen, and will not trust portrait painters.”

Catherine Howard becomes Queen

Almost immediately upon her father’s second divorce, he wed the dazzling and witty Catherine Howard. Historians debate on how old she was when she wed the 49-year old Henry. Most calculate that she was about 15 years old and according to Charles de Marillac was “rather graceful than beautiful, of short stature, etc.” Personality-wise, Catherine was described as charming, sensual, and obedient which proved a welcoming contrast to her first cousin, Anne Boleyn. Many observers noted that he showed the most generosity and affection to her than his other wives. De Marillac noted, the “King is so amorous of her that he cannot treat her well enough and caresses her more than he did the others.” 

Once Henry acknowledged her as queen, “she directed that the princess Elizabeth should be placed opposite to her at table, because she was of her own blood and lineage.” At marriage festivities, Catherine “gave the lady Elizabeth the place of honour nearest to her own person.” Elizabeth’s maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Boleyn was a sister to Edmund Howard, Catherine’s father. The young new queen reached out to Elizabeth to formulate a bond with her kinswoman by arranging for her to be taken from Suffolk Place to Chelsea where Catherine joined her. As of November 1541, Catherine presented the eight-year old Elizabeth with a jewel as a kind gesture. 

The fall of Henry VIII’s fifth wife came after John Lascelles revealed to Archbishop Cranmer the Queen’s promiscuity during her years at the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk’s estate, her step-grandmother. Many young women residing there “entertained” men after hours and Catherine was among them. When she was 13, Catherine engaged in physical relations with Francis Dereham after being earlier involved with her music teacher, Henry Manox.

Cranmer and Lascelles were both ardent Protestants while Catherine came from a conservative Catholic and undoubtedly powerful and influential English noble family. Cranmer launched a full-scale investigation that resulted in allegations of Catherine’s intimacy with Thomas Culpeper, a member of the king’s privy chamber, after her marriage to Henry.

Under interrogation (possibly torture), Culpeper admitted being in love with Catherine and “persisted in denying his guilt and said it was the Queen who, through Lady Rocheford, solicited him to meet her in private in Lincolnshire, when she herself told him that she was dying for his love.” Culpeper rebuffed claims that they had committed adultery despite their secluded time together. 

Regardless, the Council felt there was enough evidence because Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, Catherine’s lady-in-waiting, confessed to helping them arrange their meetings and implied there was a physical relationship between them. The most damning evidence against the queen was a letter from Catherine found in Culpeper’s belongings.

When the King was informed of the accusations by a document left for him in his church pew, his quick temper exploded.  Supposedly, he demanded a sword to slay her himself as she would never have “such delight in her inconstancy as she would have torture in her death.” Catherine was arrested and taken to the Tower of London. On the night before her execution, Catherine asked for a block to be brought to her so that she could practice placing her head on it. 

On February 13, 1542, the fifth teenage Queen of Henry VIII was executed, “in the same spot where Anne Boleyn had been executed. Her body was then covered [with a black cloak] and her ladies took it away,” recounted Ambassador Chapuys to Charles V. No records survive of Elizabeth’s reactions to the execution of her stepmother and cousin or the loss of any of her stepmothers for that matter. We can, though, infer her reaction through the text of Larissa J. Taylor-Smither’s article, “Elizabeth I: A Psychological Profile” that states that the “shock of Catherine Howard’s execution (at the impressionable age of eight) would have been more immediate, for even if Elizabeth had not been especially close to her young stepmother, Catherine’s sudden extinction must at the very least have had a powerful effect on her subconscious.”

Henry VIII’s sixth wife

Following the execution, Henry VIII passed a law requiring all future queens of England to disclose any ‘indiscretions’ and possess chaste pasts. That certainly narrowed the list for Henry’s next selected wife. A notable candidate by the name of Katherine Parr seemed ideal; she was charming and cordial, pleasant to both nobles and servants and possessed sensibility and was a skilled conversationalist. She was also experienced with stepchildren through her two previous husbands. 

It is certainly remarkable that she was the only one of Henry’s brides that did not want to marry him. Historians surmise that reasons range from her competence to see the pattern of dangers in marrying him to falling in love with Thomas Seymour, Lord High Admiral. Despite her reluctance to enter a marriage she couldn’t back out of, this was her chance, she believed, to promote the Protestant Reformation in England and the promotion of her family. As Queen, Katherine used her influence with the King to bring his children to Court to see their father more. Katherine was already well acquainted with Henry’s eldest child, Mary, as Katherine’s mother was a lady-in-waiting to Mary’s mother. Katherine “greatly admired her [Elizabeth’s] wit and manners.” A letter survives of the 10-year old Elizabeth writing with gratitude and praise at Katherine’s gesture to bring them to court. An excerpt from the letter reveals Elizabeth’s warmness towards her new and fourth stepmother: “…So great a mark of your tenderness for me obliges me to examine myself a little, to see if I can find anything in me that can merit it, but I can find nothing but a great zeal and devotion to the service of your Majesty.”

Between the summers of 1543 and 1544, historians speculate that Elizabeth offended her father in some way that led to her banishment to Ashridge near the Hertfordshire-Buckinghamshire border. Katherine still kept in contact with her stepdaughter and Elizabeth conveyed her belief that the young girl was “not only bound to serve but also to revere you with daughterly love…” Henry was abroad fighting against France and left Katherine as Regent in his absence. This was the first time Elizabeth witnessed firsthand a woman’s ability to rule on her own and revealed Henry’s confidence in his wife. Katherine successfully convinced the King to let Elizabeth join her at Hampton Court again, signifying their mother-daughter bond.

However, Katherine’s place and life was almost stripped from her upon two men attempting to arrest the Queen on the King’s orders. They were Thomas Wriothesley, 1stEarl of Southampton, Lord Chancellor and Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, who convinced Henry that she concealed radical religious leanings and increased his irritation with her recently expressed views. Wriothesley arranged for forty yeomen of the guard to accompany him with the arrest warrant and crept upon the Queen while she was in Henry’s company at Whitehall gardens.

Unbeknownst to Wriothesley, Katherine had been warned and hurried to her husband to explain herself and apologize. She assured him that she had not discussed theological meanings to lecture him but to learn from him and to distract him from the pain in his leg. Henry forgave her and upon Wriothesley’s arrival to arrest her, the King severely reprimanded him and sent him off. Barely escaping Henry’s wrath that claimed his previous wife, Katherine never again spoke out against the religious establishment. Katherine’s deep love of learning was shared with Elizabeth and she took charge of her education, employing Protestant and humanist tutors.

After Henry VIII

Following the King’s death in 1547, Katherine married the love of her life, Thomas Seymour. Thomas Seymour was shrewdly ambitious and the new king’s uncle and set his sights on Elizabeth as a possible wife and closer step to the throne. Finally catching onto her husband’s inappropriate advances on the 14-year old Elizabeth, Katherine removed her from her household at Chelsea in 1548 to the household of Anthony Denny and his wife at Cheshunt. Katherine was to go into confinement as the time for giving birth drew near, which would have allowed Seymour unlimited access to the vulnerable girl. It is likely Katherine removed Elizabeth for her own safety rather than to punish her. Katherine gave birth to a baby girl, Mary, in August 1548 and died eight days later of puerperal fever. 

With Katherine now dead, Thomas Seymour’s attempts at wooing Elizabeth became more aggressive. Thomas, envious of his brother’s title as Lord Protector of the 9-year old Edward VI, also grew more serious in his quest for power. In 1549, Thomas was caught attempting to break into the King’s apartments at Hampton Court Palace and was arrested and sent to the Tower of London. His associates were arrested, including Elizabeth and her governess, Kat Ashley. She was interrogated for weeks and the flirtatious incidents between Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour were revealed but there was no evidence of Elizabeth conspiring with Thomas against the King. Thomas was convicted of treason and beheaded on March 20, 1549. Elizabeth narrowly escaped conviction.

From the time of her mother’s execution to the death of her most influential stepmother from childbirth, Elizabeth had witnessed the disposal and unstable position of her father’s many queens. The seventeen-year old Henry had begun his reign in 1509 as a popular, pleasant and seemingly sensible monarch. His later years however were marked by violence and tyranny with a formidable quick temper, with theories behind this sudden change in personality ranging from a jousting accident in 1536 to mental deterioration at his wives’ repeatedly failed pregnancies. Henry’s constant mood swings no doubt had an effect on the position of the young Elizabeth and like her half-sister Mary; her illegitimate status had prevented a marriage negotiation as long as her father lived.

From Edward to Mary

In 1553, King Edward VI was fifteen years old and, despite a relatively healthy childhood, had contracted a form of consumption, possibly tuberculosis. When it became clear that the boy would not survive, the new Lord Protector, John Dudley, schemed with the dying king to name a Protestant successor instead of his half-sister, Mary who was an ardent Catholic and would have reversed Edward’s Protestant reforms. An heir(ess) was named – his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, an equally committed Protestant. To John Dudley’s advantage, Jane was also his daughter-in-law. Edward died on July 6 1553, just six years into his reign. Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen three days later. However, just nine days into Jane’s “reign,” she was deposed by Mary and her army of supporters. Mary was proclaimed Queen of England on July 19, 1553 in London. John Dudley was arrested and later executed along with Jane Grey and her husband. At first, Mary I viewed Jane as a mere pawn of her husband’s and father-in-law’s treasonous ambition, but after the Protestant Wyatt’s Rebellion, Mary was left with no choice but to put her cousin to death lest she become a figurehead of the Protestant movement that Mary had means to crush. 

Upon Mary I’s start as Queen of England, relations between the two half-sisters remained cordial despite their religious differences. It would only sour after Wyatt’s Rebellion which was in reaction to Mary’s planned marriage to Philip II, the son of her cousin Charles V, and heir to the Spanish throne. Aside from opposing the marriage, the plans were not known in great detail, but one scheme was to have Elizabeth marry Edward Courtenay, Earl of Devon, to ensure a native born succession to the throne. Elizabeth was once again under suspicion of treason. She denied any involvement or knowledge of Wyatt’s plans though several of Mary’s Councilors were determined to be rid of her. She was taken as prisoner to the Tower of London on Mary’s orders. Many had never returned from this place, including Elizabeth’s mother, and Elizabeth desperately declared her innocence. 

Elizabeth was in a delicate and dangerous situation, where her life depended on the Queen’s orders. Her existence was a threat to her Catholic realm and Mary’s advisors urged her execution. The queen was reluctant, although this was not enough, as she had already succumbed to pressure to execute Lady Jane Grey against her will. Powerful persuasion would have led Mary to sign her sister’s death warrant, but multiple factors led to Elizabeth’s survival: lack of evidence against Elizabeth, Wyatt’s assurance that Elizabeth was innocent, and Elizabeth’s increasing popularity in the country. Instead of execution, Elizabeth was taken to the manor of Woodstock, near Oxfordshire, still as prisoner. Soon after Mary’s marriage to Philip, the queen believed she was pregnant, much to the joy of her Catholic supporters. A Catholic heir to the throne of England diminished hopes of a Protestant England and Elizabeth succeeding to the throne. A discouraged Elizabeth even reputedly considered escaping to France to avoid an imprisoned life.

Queen Elizabeth I

As the months passed, however, Mary’s pregnancy turned out to be nothing more than a phantom pregnancy and no baby would arrive. Philip left England for Flanders to attend to other political matters, leaving his devastated wife behind. The marriage of Philip and Mary was intended as a political match though Mary was reputed to have fallen in love with her husband. It was once again an opportunity for Elizabeth to observe a husband’s unloving treatment of his wife. Philip had departed in the summer of 1555 upon the abdication of his father’s throne and did not return until the spring of 1557, undertaking and flaunting his extramarital affairs before English diplomats in the meantime. At one point, Mary had removed one of her husband’s portraits from her sight and publicly declared “God sent oft times to good women evil husbands.” King Henry II of France even remarked from across the Channel, “I am of the opinion that ere long the king of England [as Philip was styled during their marriage] will endeavor to dissolve his marriage with the queen.”

Within months of his return, Mary believed herself to be pregnant again. However, no baby appeared a second time and this time, Mary was seriously ill. Without a natural heir, Elizabeth was still next in line for the English throne. Though she was Protestant, Philip was concerned that the next claimant after Elizabeth was the Queen of Scots, who was betrothed to the Dauphin of France, and so would fall into French hands. He even persuaded his wife that Elizabeth should marry his cousin to secure the Catholic succession, but Elizabeth refused to be a pawn for political gain.

Mary died on November 17, 1558, either of ovarian cancer or the influenza epidemic that plagued England at the time. Philip was already away when he heard of his wife’s passing and wrote, “I felt a reasonable regret for her death.”

No marriage

Elizabeth was now twenty-five years old and Queen of England. She was the last of the Tudor dynasty and therefore the pressure to marry and produce an heir was focused on from the moment of her succession. If Elizabeth died without a natural heir, many feared rival claims of Henry VII’s distant relatives would propel the nation into bitter civil war that had only ended upon the accession of the first Tudor monarch. The court was abuzz with suitors eager for her hand. European ambassadors busied themselves with marriage negotiations. Queen Elizabeth received offers from the King of Spain, Prince Erik of Sweden, The Archduke Charles, the son of John Frederic Duke of Saxony, The Earl of Arran, and Earl of Arundel, and Sir William Pickering. Only Elizabeth seemed uninterested in the subject of marriage. Over the years it was clear that the queen would never marry, instead “calling England her husband and her subjects her children.” 

Political reasons begin with the complicated matter of a married female ruler as opposed to a male ruler. With the risk of childbirth that had already claimed the lives of two of Elizabeth’s stepmothers, the potential danger of a husband wanting to rule the country rather than being content with consort, a bitter struggle would ensue against various claimants. If Elizabeth married the heir to Spain or France, as already offered, England could have been absorbed into the Spanish Empire for example, losing English identity in the process. Her close relationship with the only man she ever loved, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, was immersed in controversy and prevented a marriage from ever taking place. Protestant nations were generally poorer than Catholic ones at the time and alliances with other Catholic nations would have been a conflict of religion and very unpopular with her subjects and Council. Under English common law, a woman who married was the property of her husband and the possibility of sacrificing power to him must have appalled her.

From an early age and into her reign as Queen of England, Elizabeth had witnessed the subservience of women expected in Tudor times and the established pattern of bad marriages that plagued her family. By the time of her death in 1603, Elizabeth had ruled for 44 years and proved that a woman could rule as well as any man. Because of her, England started to become one of the most affluent and powerful countries in the world - and would remain so for centuries. 

Sources

C. N. Trueman "Women In Tudor England"
historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 17 Mar 2015. 5 Mar 2019.

Ayers, Jessica. “Why Did Elizabeth I Never Marry?” The York Historian, The York Historian, 25 Feb. 2016, theyorkhistorian.com/2015/10/23/why-did-elizabeth-i-never-marry/.

Larson, Rebecca. “Why Queen Elizabeth I Never Married.” Tudors Dynasty, 20 June 2018, www.tudorsdynasty.com/why-queen-elizabeth-never-married/.

“Queen Elizabeth I.” Queen Elizabeth 1, www.elizabethi.org/contents/earlyyears/childhood.html.

“The Fourth Step-Mother of Elizabeth, Katherine Parr.” Elizregina, 4 June 2013, elizregina.com/2013/06/04/the-fourth-step-mother-of-elizabeth-katherine-parr/.

“The Second Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Anne of Cleves.” Elizregina, 23 May 2013, elizregina.com/2013/05/23/the-second-step-mother-to-elizabeth-anne-of-cleves/.

“The Third Step-Mother to Elizabeth, Catherine Howard.” Elizregina, 28 May 2013, elizregina.com/2013/05/28/the-third-step-mother-to-elizabeth-catherine-howard/.

Women in Tudor England – And Elizabeth I as the First British Feminist Icon?

The life of women in Tudor society was scrupulously controlled – from the way they dressed, their education and what they did in their spare time. Even under the two female rulers of the Tudor era, not much changed, but perhaps Queen Elizabeth I of England’s reign (1558-1603) can be assessed as the birth of the first British feminist icon. Kaiya Rai explains.

The Ermine Portrait of Elizabeth I of England.

Education

Though very few boys received proper formal education, virtually no girls did either. Those who were poor learnt skills from their mothers and grandmothers, and girls from rich families received an education in things such as managing a household, needlework and meal preparation. Moreover, domestic skills were essential for a woman in her future married life, as one contemporary writer commented that a woman who could not cook had essentially broken her marriage vows - “she may love and obey, but she cannot serve and keep him with that true duty which is ever expected.”

At the beginning of the 16th century it became more common for girls to attend schools alongside their male peers, and by the 1560s even the very poorest girls underwent some form of education. Most of this education, however, was dominated by Christian dogma and doctrinal teaching, such as William Barber’s school in London, who taught ‘further learning’ of the Bible. Since the Bible was used by the Church and the patriarchs in society to justify the inferiority of women, this almost added to their lack of independence, no matter the fact that they were being educated. The exceptions in education began emerging during the Reformation, when humanists, such as Thomas More, actively sought to give their daughters an excellent education. Humanists paved the way for the Enlightenment era of the 17th and 18th century, as they believed in self-understanding of the Bible, and drawing conclusions for oneself as opposed to passively listening to and believing everything the Church taught. Thus, their emergence in the education stage of Tudor England was of a similar nature - to try and reform stereotypical attitudes towards knowledge.

Marriage and patriarchy

There was no legal age for a woman to be married and so for many families, it was a matter of urgency to try and find a husband for their daughters, who would have no choice in the matter. Many believed that if a girl passed the age of 14 unmarried, she would become a burden to the family as it was an extra mouth to feed with no extra income, and many first met their spouse on the wedding day, much like Anne of Cleves and Henry VIII did. For some, such as Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the Earl of Surrey, marriage was an opportunity to further her social position. Most women were expected to enter service before they were married, and for upper-class women this would usually be with a woman of higher social standing who would also aide her in finding a husband, and for lower-class women, the agreement of a year’s service in exchange for wages and housing was usual. Others entered into the more abstruse institution of prostitution, where disease was rife and was the cause of many premature deaths. However, this was still seen as dishonorable, though it was common, as is evident in the case of Mother Bowden’s brothel which was declared ‘immoral’ by the parish officials in 1567. Furthermore, women were taught that God had commanded them to be obedient to men, whether that be father or husband, and so the patriarchy in a woman’s life in Tudor England was constantly upheld and strengthened by all sources of power.

Since they had been told from childhood that they were inferior, women subsequently acted in an inferior manner. The Reformation actually did little to thwart this, despite the more modern tendencies and attitudes of the humanists, as is evident in the beliefs of Protestant leader John Knox, who wrote “women in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.” The law gave men full rights over their wives, to the extent that they could have their wife burned at the stake for adultery, and that if a man beat his wife, it was justified on the grounds that she must have done something to provoke him, by not being a ‘good’ wife. Another important aspect of a woman’s married life was childbirth; they were expected to produce sons to carry on the family line, and this was true for royalty and peasants alike. However, childbirth was dangerous, and resulted in many deaths during it, or even after the baby was born, as puerperal fever and post-birth infections were common. One job of the ‘midwife’ was even to make arrangements for the baby in case the mother should die, indicating just how often women did die during childbirth.

Tudor women under Elizabeth I

Queen Elizabeth I did not ever get married, and to this day retains the somewhat misleading title of ‘the Virgin Queen.’ She was the most powerful woman of her time, and refused to relinquish or share that power, when women were considered property, and so perhaps it could be seen that she was a feminist in some sense. She was strong, intelligent and refused to be constrained by a political marriage. This is apparent in her hidden relationship with Robert Dudley, who she could never marry because of his status, but yet still refused to marry another who she did not love. She once stated “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and a King of England, too,” thus again indicating just how brusquely independent she was determined to be.

There is speculation among historians as to why Elizabeth I never got married, such as a psychological explanation owing to what happened to her mother and stepmother in marriage (they were beheaded). Perhaps she saw the damage of what Mary’s marriage to Philip II did to the country, and to Mary’s heart, or perhaps she held a fear of childbirth as two of her stepmothers, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr had died just after childbirth. It is clear that her love for Robert Dudley did play some importance, and her constant appearance of an available woman to foreign ambassadors meant that she could enter marriage negotiations and use them to her advantage by influencing other countries and playing them off against one another.

Despite the fierce independence of Elizabeth, she did not do much to actually improve the lives of women in society, and so perhaps cannot be a ‘feminist,’ as we see them. As Carrick asserted that “she was the monarch and [felt she’d been] appointed by God…. that set her apart from the rest of humanity.” However, we must also place her in context, and Carrick also recognises this, by stating, “The idea of women’s rights…just wouldn’t occur to her yet and yet as an individual she was that; she lived that. She was brilliant at sport and horse riding, really active, a massive intellect.”

Therefore, whilst women in the Elizabethan era had primarily similar lives to those living under the reign of the previous Tudor monarchs, the roots of feminine individuality can clearly be seen in the era, and so perhaps helped to set up a platform which would aid the suffrage movement many centuries later.

What do you think of the life of women in Tudor England? Is Elizabeth I the first British feminist? Let us know below.

In Search of El Dorado - The fascinating life of Sir Walter Raleigh

Born to a Protestant family in Devon, England in 1552, Sir Walter Raleigh was not only a prolific writer, poet and courtier of the Virgin Queen, but also a commendable explorer. Knighted by Queen Elizabeth I in the year 1585 and recognized nation-wide for his numerous talents, Raleigh is now mockingly remembered as the man who laid his cloak across a muddy pool so that Her Majesty could cross it without getting her feet dirty! Prapti Panda explains all.

Sir Walter Raleigh and his son Walter. 1602.

Raleigh had to face extreme difficulties right from his childhood. When he was a boy, his family suffered greatly, trying to outrun the Roman Catholic Church that flourished under the rule of Mary I of England. In 1569, he joined troops in subduing civil uprisings in France but eventually returned to pursue his education as an undergraduate in the well-known Oriel College, Oxford. Many such events, such as his successful abortion of the Irish rebellion, followed that showed his ambition and skills that ultimately culminated in him gaining favor with the Virgin Queen.

THE FIRST HINT OF A LIFELONG CAREER

Sailing with his half-brother Humphrey Gilbert to America in 1578 turned out to be the first of many expeditions he would undertake. Therein, after two attempts, he managed to set up a British colony on Roanoke Island under the governance of John White. But after he sailed back to England and got delayed in returning, the colonists disappeared, and today their settlement is known popularly as the ‘Lost City of Roanoke Island’, but the people of America honored him by naming the state capital of North Carolina as Raleigh. Moreover, Raleigh County, West Virginia and Mount Raleigh in British Columbia are also named after him.

But all of this hard work and gallantness of his was thrown to the wind when Queen Elizabeth found out that he had secretly married one of her ladies-in-waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton, and imprisoned them both in the Tower of London. He regained his reputation by capturing the incredible treasure-laden ship Madre de Deus and presenting it to the Queen. Some historians believe that that was when his obsession with gold started.

THE LURE OF GOLD

In the year 1594, the first hint of the existence of a ‘City of Gold’ reached him. He read the accounts of several people including Gonzalo Pizarro, Francisco Lopez and Francisco de Orellana that described the exploration of the Amazon basin and the Lower Orinoco.  By the time he decided to embark on a voyage to Guiana, he had become sure of the existence of El Dorado, the city that contained immeasurable wealth and which he dubbed Manoa. In his book, Discovery of Guiana, Raleigh recounts that it was the account of a Spaniard by the name of Juan Martinez, who was serving at the time as master of munitions to Diego Ordas, a Knight of the Order of Santiago, which provided the final proof that he needed.

Martinez, Raleigh believed, was the first European to ‘find’ El Dorado. The story was that Martinez, fearing execution due to mismanagement of some armaments that he was supposed to be in charge of, set out in a canoe down the Orinoco and was rescued by natives who took him to Manoa, the seat of their emperor. After several months of living there, Martinez was sent back to his land, laden heavily with gifts of gold which were eventually robbed off of him.

But Raleigh was not too dogmatic in his beliefs either. He reached out to various people connected with the story and was told with solid proof that left absolutely no room for doubts - in his mind at least. Then, he set sail to the New World in 1595 in search of Manoa. In reality, he had another, more significant objective - he wanted to weaken Spanish colonization of South America and build British influence there. If there was one thing that Raleigh had no qualms about stating, it was his contempt towards the Spanish. In the Discovery of Guiana, he never forgets to insert a jab or a wry comparison to his Spanish ‘friends’.

Although he gave exaggerated reports of the gold he found in Guiana when he went back to England, he was not successful in finding Manoa. Yet, silently, his belief in its existence was not shaken. In 1600, he was appointed governor of the Channel Island in Jersey and focused on improving defenses and administration.

Once again, Raleigh was struck by a bout of bad luck when Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Her successor, King James I, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, was not quite ready to be favorably disposed towards him. In fact, King James was of a platonic nature, eager to amend relations with the Spanish. His first step was accusing Raleigh of treason and throwing him once more into the Tower of London - his only concession being that he was spared his life. During his imprisonment, Raleigh penned the popular Historie of the World.

A ray of hope appeared for Raleigh in 1616, when King James allowed him to travel a second time to Guiana in search of El Dorado in exchange for a massive fortune and strict orders to not attack the Spanish. But as ill luck would have it, one of his long-time friends and confidante Lawrence Keymis’ troops attacked a Spanish outpost on the banks of the Orinoco River, defying Raleigh’s orders and resulting in the untimely death of his son Walter.

On his return to England, again empty-handed, the Spanish Ambassador was angry, wanting King James to punish Raleigh for breaking the peace treaty. With no other way out, King James ordered Raleigh’s execution. So it was that on October 29, 1618, the world saw the last of a valiant man who traversed dangerous waters and explored uncharted lands, a man who was not afraid of going after what he believed in. Now he lies in a grave in St Margaret’s Church, Westminster, London, known mainly as a name that history students remember. 

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world by sharing it, tweeting it or liking it!

The author: Prapti Panda has a deep interest in history - especially colonization and the Industrial Revolution. She spends her days researching and reading about the Royal Family and is a compulsive writer. Her first book, based on the European colonization of Latin America, will be out soon.

REFERENCES

The Discovery of Guiana, Walter Raleigh- 1595

BBC UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/raleigh_walter.shtml

WEB- https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/THE-DEATH-OF-RALEIGH-Elizabeth-I-The-Golden-Age

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!