Despite the fact that Elizabeth was a monarch and therefore needed to be able to make decisions objectively, her personal beliefs were certainly an influential part of the reasoning behind her religious settlement. Elizabeth’s personal beliefs were, as Professor G. R. Elton said “the least known part of her.” However, it is known that she was born and brought up as Protestant under her father, Henry VIII who established the Church of England. This meant that she herself would have been at least slightly in favour of Protestant settlement but this does not mean she was an extremist. On the contrary, Elizabeth liked much of the Catholic ritual and ceremony, the candles and crosses. This fits well with her political realism. Elizabeth was well aware of all the political factors that she needed to take into consideration. She knew that she could not allow her personal beliefs to be dominant among these factors and it was this awareness that led to such a balanced settlement.
Thus far, all seems clear in the reasoning behind the Elizabethan Settlement. But, in this, as in all history, historians disagree. There are three significant schools of thought on the matter. The first is Neale who refers to ‘The Puritan Choir’ formed by returned exiles that had fled during Mary’s reign. Neale discusses the idea that the Choir presented united opposition to Elizabeth’s wish to base the settlement on the 1552 book. Neale claims that this resulted in a compromise whereby Elizabeth accepted the 1552 book and instead added compromises to suit the Catholics and Moderates. In direct opposition to this was the Cambridge Connection, a book written in the 1980s by Doctor Winthrop S Hudson. Doctor Hudson denies the existence of united opposition to Elizabeth and instead presents the idea of a group of Cambridge men with beliefs somewhere between Lutheran and Calvinist. Doctor Hudson traced the relationship between these men in Elizabeth’s government and claims that the religious settlement was based on their ideals. These conflicting ideas about the factors that resulted in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement do appear to be confusing, but the widely accepted understanding in the present day is that Elizabeth considered the internal and international situations of England as well as her personal beliefs and ended up with the balanced settlement she wanted. This is backed up simply and concisely by the fact that se certainly resisted any changes to it over the next forty years of her reign.
Once Elizabeth imposed her settlement in 1559 with the act of supremacy, the act of uniformity and the 39 articles, it seemed that the settlement was perfectly balanced. To please Catholics, Elizabeth was called the ‘Governor’ and not the ‘Head’ of the Church, episcopacy was retained and ministers wore vestments.
To please Protestants, Elizabeth ruled the church, the bible and services were in English and communion tables were used instead of altars.
But although the settlement was comprised of compromise, there were those extremes of people on either end of the religious scale who were unhappy. Recusants (extreme Catholics) were unhappy with the way that the settlement had done away with many Catholic elements of the church. Despite their discontent, the extreme Catholics were quiet in the period after the settlement was passed from 1559 to around 1568. In 1568, Mary, Queen of Scots fled to England and because of her Catholicism, became a magnet for rebellions such as that in the north in 1569, which aimed to place Mary on the throne instead of Elizabeth. Although the rebellion failed, it was a blow to Elizabeth, as was the papal bull in 1570. The Bull excommunicated Elizabeth and declared her a usurper.
In response to the rebellion and the Bull, anti-Catholic laws were strengthened, a significant consequence of the settlement for recusants. The treasons act declared it treason to import symbols of Catholicism such as rosary beads or crucifixes, or to call the Queen a usurper or a heretic. This treason was punishable by death. The introduction of the Fugitives Act forced English Catholics in Europe to return to England or forfeit their land and property. This meant that they were unable to avoid choosing between their monarch and their religion and also meant that they were unable to be plotting against Elizabeth with the help of countries such as Spain or France.
In the same year as the acts were introduced, the Ridolfi plot again attempted to regain catholic power. In 1581, as Catholic missionary activity continued to grow, the Recusancy Act made this a treasonous offence. Before Mary’s execution in 1587, there were two more plots against Elizabeth that were both stopped. This series of actions and reactions- rebellions and plots followed by stricter laws and executions- was the way that the consequences of the settlement manifested for extreme Catholics.
At the other end of the scale, extreme Protestants (Puritans) were also unhappy with the settlement. They felt that it was too tolerant of Catholics and they wished to purge the church of its remaining catholic elements. Elizabeth may have been slightly more threatened by the puritans because they had support in the Privy Council, the House of Commons, and the universities.
As a result of their discontent, much as recusants had done, puritans began to act out in response to the settlement. In 1565-1566, the Vestarian Controversy meant that some clergy lost their livings for refusing to wear ‘Popish rags’ as they called the vestments. In 1576, Elizabeth ordered Archbishop Grindal to ban the practice of prophesying, a practice whereby clergy met and discussed ways to improve their standards. Elizabeth feared that the meetings would foster rebellion and when Grindal refused, he was suspended. This was followed in 1588 and 1589 with the Marl prelate tracts, which were vicious printed attacks on bishops. A few writers of these were executed.
Shortly after this, in 1593, the Conventicle Act made it illegal to belong to a puritan assembly.
The Puritans felt comfortable, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, in mocking the Catholic faith. At a procession at the precincts of St Paul’s, a printer’s apprentice even felt so comfortable as to snatch and smash the procession cross, and then to run off with a figure of Christ, declaring that he was carrying the devil’s guts.
Both Puritans and Recusants were unhappy with specific details of the settlement and took action to try to change these things. Elizabeth and her government then tightened rules and laws to try to stop this action and there were deaths on both sides.
In conclusion, the factors behind Elizabeth’s decision were the internal situation, the international situation as well as her personal beliefs. Consideration of these factors resulted in a settlement that Elizabeth was happy with but extremists from both protestant and catholic faiths were not.
Puritans and recusants acted out against the settlement in a variety of ways which Elizabeth and her parliament then restricted with laws and regulations. Ultimately, the actions of both sides came to nothing and the settlement remained in place largely unchanged throughout Elizabeth’s reign and into James’.
