In a period when political and religious ideas were enmeshed and differences entrenched, the ascension of a Protestant Queen to an overwhelmingly Catholic nation was precarious.
In a period when political and religious ideas were enmeshed and differences entrenched, the ascension of a Protestant Queen to an overwhelmingly Catholic nation was precarious. Despite the brevity of Mary's reign, she had managed legislatively to reassemble Catholicism to a largely grateful people. Following a decade of religious oscillation and volatile foreign relations, Elizabeth's religious settlement was not only fluid and ecumenical but also only demanded outward obedience. It may have instituted quasi-Catholic church vestments and aesthetics, however the settlement punished those who were publicly defiant and refused to comply with its Protestant practices. When discussing the actual threat English and continental Catholics posed, one must be wary of the exaggerated accounts by Protestants with vested interests, such as Walter Mildmay and the Earl of Leicester. By the cessation of Mary's reign, Catholicism had been re-established with the support of an inherently conservative people. Revisionists such as Williams refute traditionalist claims, asserting that England was "still largely Catholic" in 1558. There was an ardent Protestant minority in Southern England and key Protestants such as John Foxe returned from exile. In order to gauge how much of a threat Catholicism was, it is necessary to consider the perceived threat (and who shaped this perception), the
Who Were the Puritans?
Jaimie Grose Colonial American Literature Professor Shannon September 19, 2002 Who Were the Puritans? IN 1572, "a group of reformers in the House of Commons" brought forward a bill calling for the legalization of nonconformity of the kind called "Puritan." Queen Elizabeth, however, suppressed the bills concerning religion. They could no longer be introduced "without her approval." These reformers did, however, bring their concerns into the open (Vaughn 3). Puritans were a people who did not believer in the laws of men. Rather, they followed strictly the laws of God. It was believed, by many Kings and Queens, that they were chosen by God to rule over their people. This included making laws. The Church of England was also the church that everyone had to attend by law. James I made good strides when he used some Puritan ideas in his King James Version of the Bible (1611), however, it was not a Puritan document. Puritanism remained underground (Vaughn 13). "As Puritanism and the ideas that went along with Puritanism spread, the determination of the Anglican establishment to stop nonconformist movement grew." The government used different methods of trying to discourage the Puritans including, "issuing decrees against unorthodox practices, increasing supervision over local clergymen, and removing ministers from their livings" (Vaughn 20). Then, in 1629, Charles I
A Report On Jon Venables and Robert Thompson After Being Set Free To Lead a Normal Lives.
Report By Sophia Johnson A REPORT ON JON VENABLES AND ROBERT THOMPSON AFTER BEING SET FREE TO LEAD A NORMAL LIVES. (Sophia Johnson) On the afternoon of February 12, 1993, in a shopping centre in Merseyside in north-western England, just outside of Liverpool), two ten-year-olds took two-year-old James Bulger and a long walk which ended his life. Eight years after the horrific murder of James Bulger, the two culprits Jon Venable and Robert Thompson have been set free with new identities to lead normal lives. This has brought up a number of questions some of which are... 'Was justice served on behalf of James Bulger?' and 'Will the two young men Jon Venable and Robert Thompson be able to led real free lives?' The report from The Sunday Times and that from The Mail On Sunday about the characters of Jon Venable and Robert Thompson are very similar. They are similar in the sense that they both highlight the same aspects of the two young men's characters. In both reports, reference is made to the failure of both boys to be able to interact well with the public. The reports also highlight the insecurity and fearfulness in both Venables and Thompson; both of then are afraid of being discovered at some point and the retribution they will face if they are discovered. The two articles also make a particular reference to the academic performances of both boys. This portrays the two
Is the English Civil War best described as a war of religion?
Is the English Civil War best described as a war of religion? The flash point that caused the outbreak of the English civil war was King Charles I's attempted arrest of five parliamentary figures in January of 1642. He was unsuccessful, and the challenge to government lay open the scene for Parliament to be bring to the fore their concern about their tyrannical king, and Charles to be incensed at the absence of absolute power. Is then Mary Cary's view of the two sides, "...Parliament's army, who stood for the defence of the Saints against the beast" 1misconstrued? Or did the king's unsuccessful request for money, disguise a greater rift connected with religious convictions? Many men of the period were worried about the ambitions of women in the wake of the Civil War, leading to much satire within the literature and art of the time. However Mary Cary's views are quite competent and astute in as much as the overriding tones of the conflict were embodied by religious beliefs. Yet for satisfactory answers the above questions need to be considered with respect to the causes of the war, as well as the results and the combat itself. If the war was indeed one of religion, Anglicans versus Puritans, then the evidence encountered needs to fulfil two requirements. Those fighting for politics alone were in the minority and those fighting for religion were doing so truly and not to
Tudor Coursework - Elizabethan foreign policy.
Tudor Coursework - Elizabethan foreign policy. (a) Identify four events that influenced Anglo-Spanish relations in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Pope created treaty of Tordesillas 1498. Elizabeth I accepted title protector of the Netherlands and sent troops to fight in civil war 1585-86. Drake's "singeing of the king of Spain's beard" at Cadiz in 1587. 2nd Spanish Armada 1588. (b) Explain briefly why France was not a great threat to Elizabethan England. While France did not ultimately turn out to be a great threat to Elizabethan England it certainly had the potential and initial intent to be so. With Henri II described as a colossus straddling England with one foot in Calais and one foot in Scotland. He above all else was the one main threat to Elizabeth I and Elizabethan England. With his death in 1559 the Colossus was no more and the immediate threat from France and was gone. However her army, in Scotland on behalf of Mary Stuart was still there and under the leadership of Mary of Guise it should have been a powerful threat. However in February 1560 Scottish Protestants rebelled against Mary of Guise. The ensuing struggle took part between French troops and Scottish Protestants with the help of English troops. With the death of Mary of Guise in June 1560 the French troops were swiftly forced to sign the treaty of Edinburgh and leave Scotland. This worked out
How did the perception of Spain as the centre of a mighty European empire change to a lame state in the early-modern period?
How did the perception of Spain as the centre of a mighty European empire change to a lame state in the early-modern period? 'Generations of English-speaking historians have considered Spain worthy of attention mainly in respect of one single theme- the 'decline of Spain"1 Historians disagree as to the point of the decline of Spain- Kamen, for instance, states that your conclusion depends on your 'political and moral views'2, although he is sure that 'between 1450 and 1714 Spain underwent a more extensive political evolution than probably any other European state of the time'3 and points out that the Spaniards themselves tended to view the period as one of 'tyranny, bigotry and racism'4, and not as a magnificent empire. The reign of Ferdinand and Isabella is often seen as the high point of Spain, bringing together Castile and Aragon, and truly uniting the two into one country. William E. Wilson states that: "The few decades which immediately preceded her golden age had seemed to promise a future of increasing power and wealth for Spain. With the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabel in 1469 unified rule was established in the nation for the first time in centuries."5 Very different monarchs ruled over Spain in the period from 1500 to 1670. Their ruling styles were often drastically different from the predecessor. Ferdinand and Isabella, the uniting force of Spain were famous
How far was Mary, Queen of Scots, a threat to Elizabeth's throne?
How far was Mary, Queen of Scots a threat to Elizabeth's throne Mary Queen of Scots arrived in England in 1569. From this point she represented the internal Catholic struggle against Elizabeth, and to many represented the rightful successor to Mary Tudor. However, historians contest the extent to which Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) was falsely implicated in rebellion, and debate the extent to which she herself threatened Elizabeth's crown, relative to the nobles in court and the Catholic priesthood who also had interests in deposing Elizabeth. Mary's arrival undoubtedly revived the Northern earls' anger to Elizabeth, leading to the 1569 Northern rebellion. Her proposed marriage to the Duke of Norfolk caused Elizabeth great worry, as this had the potential to cause a popular Catholic uprising in favour of Mary taking the throne. Yet, it is arguable that Mary was thrust into the centre of this plot by revisionist views. Furthermore, it is likely that Northumberland, Westmoreland and Lord Dacre were responsible for the proposed marriage, as a front to securing their own desires for power in the revolt. However, given the evidence of Elizabeth's anti-Catholic measures in response, it is fair to assess that she feared Mary's influence in England and externally in catalysing a Catholic Counter-Reformation against her, and the Northern Rebellion showed how she would be willing to
Why was Elizabeth so successful as a female ruler?
Why was Elizabeth so successful as a female ruler? Elizabeth I was the last Tudor monarch. She was born on 7 September 1533 as the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Her chances of succeeding to the English throne had seemed very slim following the birth of her half-brother, Edward, in 1537 and her father, Henry VIII was in favour of a male heir succeeding him as King of England rather than a female heir (which he greatly opposed) and this was a significant factor in Henry's decision to remarry again and again. Henry VIII felt that if England were to be ruled by a female, this would result in a weak government, likely to lead to marriage to a ruler from another country, which in turn would lead to the end of England. However, despite Henry's beliefs, Elizabeth came to the throne on the death of her half sister, Mary, in November 1558. She ruled for a period of 45 years. This essay will investigate the factors which determine the reasons why Elizabeth was so successful as a female ruler and will also examine drawbacks of Elizabeth, that gave rise to a case which opposes this particular view upon Elizabeth's reign, before drawing upon a conclusion that agrees or disagrees with the view that Elizabeth was a successful female ruler in England. Queen Elizabeth I was very well educated. She was fluent in six languages and "had inherited intelligence,
Why did Charles V Abdicate?
Why did Charles V Abdicate? After a nearly forty year rule over an empire of unprecedented size and complexity, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire abdicated his throne in 1555-6. His rein saw much adversity yet he had great success and during his rein, the empire grew and prospered. However, a series of political, militaristic and health problems culminated in Charles’s retirement. To explore these problems and to fully comprehend why Charles relinquished his power is the topic of this essay. By and large, Charles V was the most powerful leader in Europe during his rein (Cavendish 2006). His realm was described as “an empire which the sun never set on” and it encompassed about 1,500,000 square miles. A Habsburg in his teens, in 1516 he inherited Spain, which had been unified by his grandparents Isabella and Ferdinand. In 1519 he succeeded his paternal grandfather Maximilian I as Holy Roman Emperor (Cavendish 2006). He was Duke of Burgundy and Archduke of Austria and he also ruled the Netherlands, Bohemia, Hungary, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia. Ruling Spain meant ruling Spanish America and in Charles’s time Cortés took Mexico and Pizarro conquered Peru (Cavendish 2006). The wealth of Spain paid for his efforts to control Western Europe. Despite sizeable incomes from parts of the empire, Charles’s rein encountered monetary difficulties attributing to
Elizabeth I. Gender, Power and Politics.
ELIZABETH I GENDER, POWER & POLITICS • Judging from the televison poll of Great Britons, Elizabeth I is the best known and admired English monarch. • Given her high profile in films and biographies, it seems that her life was full of incident and drama. • She scored highest on her bravery and leadership qualities. • There was also a strong emphasis on her difficulties as a female ruler and her role as the 'ultimate British feminist icon' • Recent academic opinion is usually less kind to Elizabeth. Christopher Haigh has described her as a bully and a show off. • Susan Brigden shares the Elizabethan Council's irritation with the Queens indecision, prevarication's and faulty judgement. • Historians today tend to stress the problems she faced as a female ruler in the patriarchal 16th century and the ways she attempted to get rid of them. • Elizabeth's methods of negotiating her gender have been partially misunderstood. • There is no question that early modern society was deeply patriarchal in its structure and attitudes. • Male governed most property arrangements as well as the laws of succession to the crown. • Women were not expected to assert any independent authority, were deemed less important to male relatives whether fathers, brothers or husbands. • John Knox railed against female monarchy. • Female rule was no