Nearly all three hundred of those who were burnt were done so in public on charges of heresy. This allowed the image of the “Marian Martyrs” to arise amongst the common people. Paul Thomas argues that Mary was careful to avoid executing men of high standing to avoid making enemies that she could not defeat. It is also important to remember that centralised government was not strong during Mary’s reign. Central government was particularly strong under Wolsey (Henry VIII) and Cecil (Elizabeth), but Mary did not have the state machinery to enforce her religious policy without the aide of the nobility, Catholic or Protestant. Thomas says, “Mary carefully avoided direct persecution of high social rank…yet defiance among the lower ranks had to be rooted out by brutal example”. Mary thought that the burnings would “represent a dangerous example to the lower ranks”. She expected that the example would be heeded, and that there would be little need for further measures to ensure the success of her religious policy. Tittler agrees that the majority of those that were burnt were amongst the lower classes, “The later victims, and by far the majority of the total number, were men of humbler status…”. In Essex for example, 30 people were burnt under Mary’s rule, of whom only 3 were classed as gentlemen. Thomas does not stress the danger that this provoked to Mary’s Counter Reformation. The danger lay in the fact the majority of he country were of the same status of those being burnt, and could identify with them. Tittler agrees, “their of fortitude [the peasants being burnt], in turn, strengthened the wills of their equals, who formed part of the very fabric of English society”. If this view is to be believed then the effects of the martyrdoms was to undermine the governments’ attempts at uniformity, as well as to confirm to the faithful that they were indeed God’s chosen if they retained their courage under such duress. I think that the evidence also points to the fact the government had possibly anticipated a possible negative reaction to the burnings, and had burnt men of lowly origins to demonstrate the unimportance of the burnings.
The trouble with this entire argument is that the main source of contemporary material comes from John Foxe. Foxe published his work, Foxe’s book of Martyrs, in 1563, certainly at the time of the burnings, but was accused by Catholic opponents of simply publishing propaganda. The book was dedicated to the “most Christian and renowned princess, Queen Elizabeth”, and throughout we can see that Foxe did have Protestant tendencies. His support for Elizabeth and Edward VI are suspicious, he calls Edward “the celebrated young monarch”, but when he talks about Mary he is far less complimentary. He says of Mary, “having obtained the sword of justice, she was not sparing in its exercise”. P. Hughes, a Catholic historian, calls Foxe’s work “a mighty piece of anti-Catholic propaganda”. There is however, little evidence to support this, and C S L Davies counter argues that “Foxe wrote a good history; as for recent history, a checking of his account by such official records as survive, shows him to be substantially accurate about facts”. Even pro-Catholic writers, such as Michieli corroborate Foxe’s accounts. Michieli’s account of the execution of Rowland Taylor in fact suggests even more unrest than Foxe does in his account. Jasper Ridley also points out the lengths that Foxe went to amend inaccuracies pointed out to him by Catholics and neutrals alike.
From the evidence above, it would seem that the burnings were having a large influence on the people of England, and at first glance, would appear to be the cause of the failure of Mary’s religious policy. There were, however, other factors, which may have limited Mary’s success, one of which may have been her marriage to Philip II of Spain. Mary had planned a marriage alliance with Spain, which had been arranged by Charles V and Mary herself. Charles himself was too old at the time to marry Mary himself, so he gave her his son, Philip. This was not a popular move in England, which seems to have culminated in Wyatt’s rising in January 1554. The lack of popularity of the marriage is shown well, when on the 16th of November 1553, a parliamentary delegation asked Mary not to wed a foreigner. David Starkey describes public opinion towards the marriage; “…the reaction [to news of the marriage] was uniformly hostile. The lower orders in England hated all foreigners and foreign ways”. It appears that a national opposition to Philip sprang from anti-papal xenophobia linked, via English commercial connections, to German and Flemish fears of ‘Spanish tyranny.’ This is backed up from a paper, which quotes William Isley to have said “…the Spanyards was commyynge into the realme wt harnes and handgonnes, and would make us Inglish men wondrous…vile….” Also, a special oath of allegiance had been administered amongst the royal troops, which included an oath of allegiance to Philip II. When the soldiers came into contact with Wyatt and his men crying, “we are Englishmen!” all but a handful defected to Wyatt’s cause. This suggests that anti-Spanish feeling was strong enough to break a royal oath and defect, rather than fight a small band of 4000 men. Anti-Spanish feeling has been taken as the primary cause for Wyatt’s rising, but there were other serious economic factors which may have led to the rising. The Kentish cloth trade had suffered drastically, and economic strife was particularly bad in this region. Also, this region saw the largest number of burnings than any other in the country. This may provide us with some evidence that as a result of the burnings (of which a great number had already taken place before Wyatt rose), support for the rebels increased. Whatever the cause of the rebellion may have been, it certainly had an effect on Mary’s religious policy. Wyatt, a previously loyal servant to the monarchy under Edward VI had become a protestant martyr, and perhaps led to Philip II leaving England. Without Philip in the country it was impossible for Mary to conceive a baby, and to have an heir. The next in line for the throne, legally, was Elizabeth, who was a protestant. So, despite the risings’ failure to depose Mary, its consequences may have had a much larger impact on Mary’s religious policy than first meets the eye.
Anther factor that must be mentioned is propaganda. Christopher Haigh says that “Marian Catholics lost the battle of the books” and that “there was surprisingly little attention to the claims of Rome in official propaganda and Catholic polemic.” Robert Tittler goes further when he says that “Mary’s regime concentrated on the suppression of opposing voices rather that the projection of its own.” The volume of Protestant propaganda being produced abroad in cities such as Strasbourg is estimated by both Tittler, Cross, Loades and Haigh to outnumber Catholic works by at least one to two. Also, the effectiveness of the propaganda has been questioned. The kind of Protestant literature in circulation in England has been seen as a far more effective medium of propaganda than the material that was being produced by the Catholics. Firstly, it is estimated that 19,000 copies of the Prayer book of 1552 were still in circulation a upon Mary’s accession, which Tittler says was “enough to sustain a viable Protestant underground for some time.” Also books provoking passive resistance to Catholic doctrine, and instilling courage into the hearts of Protestants were available under such titles as, Whether Christian Faith maye be kepte secret in the heart, which is probably a translation of a piece written by Calvin himself. The problem was multiplied when the Marian government ruled in parliament in 1553 that all Protestant printers should lose their licences. This virtually halved the number of presses in England, and meant that Mary had far fewer presses on which to produce her own material. The content of the Catholic propaganda was also ineffective as propaganda. Haigh says that it was “true that Catholic leaders and writers wished to inform than to persuade.” However, with numbers reaching 20,000 attending the effective sermons of Pendleton and Hugh Weston, it is clear that this is a mistake. The Protestants made propaganda coups with the early burnings, whereas the Catholics missed the opportunities to capitalise on the recantations of people such as Cranmer. So overall, the lack of decent Catholic propaganda seems to have had a detrimental effect, although perhaps not a crucial one, on Mary’s religious policy.
To argue to the contrary, some historians have questioned the spontaneity of the support of the Martyrs at their executions, and some have even suggested that there was widespread neutrality and even support of the burnings. The first piece of evidence that there was a lack of support for Protestants is found at Wyatt’s rebellion in January 1554. Wyatt was only able to raise 3000 men, which is a significant mark down from the numbers that rose for the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 and in the rebellions that took place in 1549. This is particularly telling as Wyatt was recruiting from the Medway valley, an area previously known for its Protestant sympathies. Haigh supports this by saying, “there was limited recruitment even in the Medway valley, where Protestant success had been greatest”. Wyatt in fact was the most successful rising against Mary. Carew failed in Devon, Sir James Crofts failed in Herefordshire and the Duke of Suffolk was only able to raise 100 of his own tenants in Leicestershire, all in January 1554. Some support can also be found for the Spanish marriage itself. Sir Christopher Trychay, Henry Machyn, a churchwarden at Minchinhampton (Gloucestershire), and Robert Parkyn recorded the marriage with evident pride in their chronicles, and Parkyn thought the marriage “was a great joy and comfort to all good people in the realm.” Perhaps this is an indication that Protestantism did not have the kind of support that is indicated by Foxe. Even so, we still see demonstrations, in fairly large numbers at the burnings, reaching up to 7000 at Hooper’s execution. It is however perfectly possible that a small number of radicals were responsible of stirring up crowds at such occasions, and that Foxe’s statement that people came out of their houses en mass to support the condemned may be exaggerated. Loades says, “In some cases they [the demonstrations] were certainly contrived by sympathisers in the crowd”. Christopher Haigh agrees with Loades, and says of one instance, “Leading Protestant clergy were suspiciously on hand to calm the mob”. Haigh asserts that, “it is hard to assess the true scale of hostility to restored Catholicism: malcontents and hooligans may not represent very much, and for every protester thousands paid dutifully towards altars and images.” Looking at numbers of Protestants uncovered by Catholic visitations provide us with a limited, but useful source of evidence in ascertaining how much Protestant opposition there actually was. Only 15 heretics were found in the archdeaconry in Chester in 1554, and in Lincoln in 1556, twenty were reported, all of whom except 4 submitted and conformed. Numbers from the visitors build a similar picture of the rest of the country, that there were only small pockets of Protestantism, with larger numbers tending to be in larger cities. For example, of the heretics found in the Chester deaconry, almost all of them came from Manchester. The Imperial ambassador wrote to Charles V in November 1554 saying that out of 500 people that were present when parliament announced the reunification with Rome, only one man was opposed, and was “a man who enjoys no support.” We cannot tell however, how many Protestants were uncovered and nation-wide public feeling towards Catholicism is not officially recorded.
In conclusion, it seems that there are some very mixed views about the effect that the burnings had on the English people, and how they affected Mary’s religious policy. The burnings, coupled with some other Catholic blunders may have led to an overall failure of a policy that probably should have been achieved fairly easily. The numbers of Catholics were evident in the1549 risings, and popular support for risings in Mary’s reign was not great. However, Mary still managed not to achieve what she had set out to do. This could be put down to an overall shift in opinion due to the burnings. It could be said however, that Mary’s lack of time played a great part in the ultimate lack of success. If this were the case, then it could be argued that Mary’s religious policy was not a failure at all, but simply incomplete. After all, she had implemented the reinsertion of the monasteries, and performed a total return to Catholic doctrine. The problem of time is emphasised by the fact that Mary was not able to replace the bishops that had been in place under Edward until November 1556. Perhaps if Mary had had more time then she would have been able to complete her transition. Also her lack of an heir to carry on her work was a major downfall. Overall then I think that the question is still left open to interpretation, although I would have to say that I so think that Mary’s burnings must have had an effect, and the evidence supports that there was an effect to some extent. I also agree however, that time played an important role, and the true religion would have been fully implemented, and would have lasted, had Mary had more time on the throne, and an heir.
Word count: 3012
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Claire Cross: “Church and People, England 1450-1660.”
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I.”
David Loades: “Politics and Nation, England 1450-1660.”
John Foxe: “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.”
Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors.”
Paul Thomas: “Authority and Disorder in Tudor times, 1485-1603.”
P. Hughes: “The Reformation in England.”
I. Dawson: “The Tudor Century 1485-1603.”
C S L Davies: “Peace, Print and Protestantism.”
Jasper Ridley: “Bloody Mary’s Martyrs.”
Clark: “English Provincial Society.”
Parkyn: “Parkyn’s Narrative of the Reformation.”
Report from Reynard to Charles V re.30th November 1554.
David Loades: “Two Tudor Conspiricies.”
Claire Cross: “Church and People, England 1450-1660”. Pg 86.
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I”. Pg 33.
David Loades: “Politics and Nation, England 1450-1660”. Pg 200.
David Loades: “Politics and Nation, England 1450-1660”. Pg 201.
John Foxe: “Foxe’s book of Martyrs”. Pg 203.
Claire Cross: “Church and people, England 1450-1660”. Pg 96. (N.B. It was normally a sign of support to dip one’s handkerchief in a victim’s blood, however in this instance it signifies the opposite.)
Obtained from: Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudor”. Pg 223.
Paul Thomas: “Authority and Disorder in Tudor Times, 1485-1603”. Pg 27.
Paul Thomas: “Authority and Disorder in Tudor Times, 1485-1603”. Pg 27.
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I” Pg 33.
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I” Pg 33.
John Foxe: “Foxe’s book of Martyrs”. Pg 97.
John Foxe: “Foxe’s book of Martyrs”. Pg 98.
P. Hughes: “The reformation in England”. (Obtained from I. Dawson: “The Tudor Century 1485-1603: Pg 271.)
C S L Davies: “Peace, Print and Protestantism”. (Obtained from I. Dawson: “The Tudor Century 1485-1603: Pg 271.)
Jasper Ridley: “Bloody Mary’s Martyrs”. Pg 223.
Clark: “English Provincial Society”. Pg 95.
Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudor”. Pg 223.
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I”. Pg 39.
Robert Tittler: “The reign of Mary I”. Pg 39.
Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudor”. Pg 224.
Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudor”. Pg 221.
Parkyn: “Parkyn’s Narrative of the Reformation”. Pg 82.
David Loades: “Politics and Nation, England 1450-1660”. Pg 200.
Christopher Haigh: “English Reforms; Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudor”. Pg 219.
Numbers from: “Lincolnshire Archaeological and Architectural Society Reports and Papers”.Pg 58-9 and P. Hughes: “The Reformation in England”. Pg 598-600.
Simon Renard: Report to Charles V, re.30th November 1554.