Asses the Elizabeth's priorities in formulating the Church Settlement of 1559

Authors Avatar

Asses the Elizabeth’s priorities in formulating the Church Settlement of 1559.

Over the years there has been much debate amongst different historians as to what were    Elizabeth I’s priorities in formulating the Church Settlement of 1559. There are three main schools of thought. First one, represented by orthodox historian, J. Neale, assumes that Elizabeth I wanted a Henrican Settlement, in which she would be a head of the church rather than the Pope. Revisionist school, however, represented by Jones, argues that Queen wanted extreme Protestant Settlement similar to the 1552 Prayer Book. The last one, Post-Revisionist school, can be divided into two groups. First group assumes that Queen was weak and therefore manipulated by her the Council, which was in charge of Cecil. Second group, however, argues that Elizabeth was a strong Queen who got what she wanted by good management and control of her parliament.

The traditional interpretation of the events of 1559 was provided by Sir John Neale, who argued that Elizabeth I preferred a restoration of her father’s church- Catholicism without the Pope. Instead she was pushed into more protestant settlement than she wanted by protestant pressure in the House of Commons led by returned Marian Exiles. As Neale went on, this puritan group forced Elizabeth to “compromise between her ideal of a conservative religious settlement and their ideal of a settlement modelled by the Swiss Reformation”. It was this conflict, he thought, that made the Parliament of 1559 so stormy, not Catholic opposition to the change in the religion. Neale came to this view for several reasons. Firstly, he placed considerable weight on the international situation in 1558-59. When Elizabeth came to the throne in November 1558, England was still at war with France. The government did not possess the revenue to continue fighting. Therefore, Elizabeth had to follow a conservative religious policy in order no to upset Catholics at home or abroad. Neale attached significance to the peace negotiations at Cateau-Cambresis; he thought Elizabeth to pursue a conservative policy, at least until a treaty had been signed and England was safely out of the war. Neale believed that “a significance body of opinion in the House of Commons supported a radical religious settlement.” This group was led, as Neale argued, by Sir Francis Knollys and Sir Anthony Cooke. John Neale noted that approximately one-quarter of the 404 members of the Houes of Commons acted together to force a reluctant Queen towards Protestantism. Act of Supremacy, by which Elizabeth became Head of the Church, is accepted by all historians; the Act of Uniformity, however, by the power of which Elizabeth became the Supreme Governor of the Church, is where debate lies. Neale argued that unlike Henry VIII and Edward VI Elizabeth became the Supreme Governor of the Church, because of puritan pressure, who could not, according to Neale, accept woman in charge. In their eyes “only Christ was head of the Church.”

Join now!

However, Sir John Neale’s interpretation has been criticised by several historians. The historian who, more than any other, led the criticism of John Neale’s view is Norman Jones. This Revisionist historian argues that Neale’s view is to narrow and lack depth. He argued that “Elizabeth I and her advisers established a religion settlement which reflected their own religious views.” Opposition to this settlement, according to Jones, came from Catholics in the House of Lords, not radical Protestants in the House of Commons, who in Jones opinion never existed. What is more Jones proved, that Neale’s “puritan group”,
could not consist of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay