Catholic opposition to Elizabeth posed a significant threat during Elizabeth's reign.
Introduction-
Define "Catholic opposition"
Define "Catholic opposition"
- Spain (especially after 1568).
- France (government before 1572, and the Catholic League after that)
- Mary Queen of Scotts and the plotters who wanted her on the throne
- Jesuits and seminary priests.
- posing a danger of assassinating Elizabeth or at the very least overthrowing her
- threatening her position as Supreme Governor
- the stability of the Protestant Church of England.
Significant
Paragraph 1- Evidence that threat from abroad (France/Spain) was significant:
Paragraph 3- Evidence that the threat from Mary was significant
Paragraph 4- Evidence that the threat from Jesuits/seminary priests was significant
|
Not Significant
Paragraph 2- Evidence that threat from abroad (France/Spain) was not significant
Paragraph 5- Evidence that the threat from Jesuits/seminary priests wasn't significant
|
Conclusion-
A sensible judgement would be that the Catholic threat- both at home and abroad was genuinely significant in the middle period of the reign, but a mixture of luck (Armada), legislation (Penal Laws), good government (Walsingham's expertise) and diplomacy (Treaty of Blois) helped to reduce the threat significantly by 1590.
A sensible judgement would be that the Catholic threat- both at home and abroad was genuinely significant in the middle period of the reign, but a mixture of luck (Armada), legislation (Penal Laws), good government (Walsingham's expertise) and diplomacy (Treaty of Blois) helped to reduce the threat significantly by 1590.
To what extent were Presbyterians and Separatists influential during the years 1570 to 1588?
Introduction-
Define "influential" as being able to mould the opinion of ordinary people AND also to have an impact on the decision making of those in power- e.g. Council, Parliament, Elizabeth
Define "influential" as being able to mould the opinion of ordinary people AND also to have an impact on the decision making of those in power- e.g. Council, Parliament, Elizabeth
Arguments for them being influential
Paragraph 1-
Presbyterian ideas were found in places of learning e.g. Cartwright was a professor at Cambridge University; there were also Presbyterians (or Prebsyterian sympathisers) in key positions on Council e.g. Walsingham and Dudley. They used this influence to protect some Presbyterian vicars from being removed by Archbishop Whitgift- and Cecil even appointed one of them, Travers, as his personal chaplain. The growing threat from Spain encouraged MP's and councillors to become increasingly Presbyterian as a way of standing firm and strong against the Catholic threat. Paragraph 2-
Presbyterian ideas became increasingly popular among ordinary clergy (vicars) and other ordinary people during this period: this was largely because some Puritan clergy resented their bishops for enforcing the dress code during the Vestiarian Crisis and for taking away preaching licences until they publicly pledged loyalty to the hated prayer book. The Admonitions (by Field) were read by a wide variety of people and spread Presbyterian ideas further. There is lots of evidence that people attended Presbyterian classes Paragraph 3-
Separatist ideas began to grow in prominence too- there were Separatists strongholds in London and Norwich. This can be explained by the fact that many Puritans felt that Elizabeth had let them down- link this to their "Deborah" expectations and the fact that Elizabeth had changed Northumberland's prayer book, introduced a "Catholic" style of vestments, and consistently refused to consider expanding on her settlement in a more Protestant direction- this meant that some people felt that Elizabeth's church would NEVER be Protestant enough, hence the need to set up their own church (they felt Cecil had been too weak in pressuring Elizabeth to move in a more Puritan direction.) |
Argument against their influence
Paragraph 4-
Even Presbyterians in positions of influence were unable to influence Elizabeth herself- Cartwright was sacked from his post at Cambridge; even her favourites Burghley, Leicester and Walsingham were unable to persuade her to take her Settlement further. MP's who attempted to raise the issue of Protestant reform were defeated. Grindal (the only Archbishop who had any sympathy with Presbyterians) was sacked after he refused to back down on prophesyings, and replaced by the ultra-loyalist Whitgift who began a crackdon (links to next paragraph.) Paragraph 5-By the end even of this period, Presbyterian and Separatist ideas were in decline- the appointment of Whitgift in 1583 led to a crackdown on both groups and lots of Presbyterian clergy e.g. Gifford were removed from their posts. The threat of the Armada made many Presbyterians tone down their ideas for the sake of Protestant unity against the Catholics; and the defeat of the Armada proved to many that God was on the "moderate Protestant" side too. Presbyterian "classes" had only ever been popular in parts of the country (very little in the north) and Separatism was only really strong in London and Norwich.
Paragraph 6-Ultimately, Presbyterian and Separatist ideas failed to influence the structure and shape of the Church. By 1588, there was (a) a system where bishops were, if anything, even stronger and growing in the confidence that came from their belief that the Bible did support them, and (b) no strong independent Puritan church of the type that the Separatists had hoped for. Even by 1588,the Church of England had begun to be the "big tent" we talked about in lessons. In the end, Elizabeth had always intended her Settlement to be the "last word" on religious matters, and ultimately these groups weren't influential because they never changed her mind on this issue.
|
What extent did factional rivalry undermine Elizabeth?
For Argument
Paragraph 1-
There was a Cecil v Dudley rivalry and a Norfolk v Dudley rivalry early in Elizabeth's reign- even the revisionist historians agree that the Cecil v Dudley rivlalry existed on issues such as marriage- and there is no doubting that such rivalries must have had some impact on the day to day running of government (given that they provided a distraction for many members of Council- note that the Norfolk/Dudley rivalry was not just about them but about their supporters (think purple and yellow ribbons). The Cecil v Dudley rivalry also complicated the discussions Elizabeth and Cecil had about marriage! Paragraph 2-
The Essex v Robert Cecil rivalry also had a disruptive impact on the years 1588 to 1603- especially as, the greater the rivalry grew, the more erratic and dangerous Essex's behaviour became (leading to his behaviour in Ireland- which threatened to damage Elizabeth's attempts to crush the rebellion; and also to his rebellion of 1601.) |
Counter Argument
Paragraph 3-
While the Cecil v Dudley rivalry existed, it was not on a wide range of issues- both Cecil and Dudley were radical Protestants (the traditional historians got this wrong, and believed Cecil was more moderate)- as a result they agreed on most of the big questions of the day. They worked in harmony together most of the time. The Norfolk v Dudley rivalry may have been a distraction but certainly didn't seriously hamper Council- and it ended quickly in 1571 with Norfolk's execution. Paragraph 4-
Throughout Elizabeth's reign, Council displayed great "homogeneity"- because all Councillors were from a similar social class, they enjoyed ancient and strong family links (their wives often worked together as ladies in waiting too)- this outweighed the impact of any rivalries. You can quote both Guy and Adams here. Paragraph 5-The 1571 - 1588 period in particular was a time of great harmony on Council- mainly because it consisted of a fairly small number of talented individuals, who worked well together, generally respected each other's talents, and largely shared each other's fairly Puritan beliefs.
Paragraph 6-
Even the Essex v Robert Cecil rivalry didn't lead to a collapse in Council or even to Council being unable to govern properly- there is little evidence that it led to Council being unable to run the economy/supervise local govt/advise Elizabeth etc. And by the late 1590s, Robert Cecil was so dominant that the rivalry had become almost irrelevant. |
To what extent did France pose a significant threat to Elizabeth between 1558 and 1603?
Introduction-
make sure you make a judgement and define "signifcant threat"- e.g. a real possibility of invasion via Scotland or the Channel; a real possibility the French could be involved in overthrowing Elizabeth or of controlling territory in which she had an interest (e.g. the Netherlands)
make sure you make a judgement and define "signifcant threat"- e.g. a real possibility of invasion via Scotland or the Channel; a real possibility the French could be involved in overthrowing Elizabeth or of controlling territory in which she had an interest (e.g. the Netherlands)
For Argument
Paragraph 1- France did pose a significant threat during the turbulent relationship of Elizabeth's early years
Paragraph 2- While relationships with the French government improved, the increasingly powerful French Catholic League threatened England from the 1570s onwards
Paragraph 3- Elizabeth certainly perceived that there was a French threat in the Netherlands
|
Counter Argument
Paragraph 4- Even during the early years, the threat from France was inconsistent and effectively dealt with
Paragraph 5- 1572 onwards: Treaty of Blois improved relations
Paragraph 6- The French were ultimately unable to make significant headway in the Netherlands and posed little threat to Elizabeth's interests there
|
To what extent did Protestant opposition damage Elizabeth's reign
Model answer
Introduction:
Opposition from Protestants came from Puritans, Presbyterians and Separatists. Puritanism arose as a response to the 1559 Church Settlement which some Protestants found to be too “Popish” and wanted to purge the Church of England of all “superstitious” elements. Presbyterianism was the belief that the Church of England should be further reformed along Calvinist lines and in particular the removal of bishops, initially it was a small movement that grew out of Calvin’s view of Church organisation however became more pronounced in response to the Vestarian Controversy. Separatists were mainly independent congregations who wanted to completely separate from the Church of England as they saw the Church as incapable of reforming itself. Protestant opposition didn’t directly threaten Elizabeth’s reign however caused damage by undermining Elizabeth’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church and challenging her views and authority as Queen. Arguably Protestantism damaged her reign significantly because it split Elizabeth’s primary supporters at critical periods of her reign when Elizabeth was fighting the more serious Catholic threat however, opposition was minimal and never achieved anything other than infuriating the Queen therefore, it did little to damage her reign.
Opposition from Protestants came from Puritans, Presbyterians and Separatists. Puritanism arose as a response to the 1559 Church Settlement which some Protestants found to be too “Popish” and wanted to purge the Church of England of all “superstitious” elements. Presbyterianism was the belief that the Church of England should be further reformed along Calvinist lines and in particular the removal of bishops, initially it was a small movement that grew out of Calvin’s view of Church organisation however became more pronounced in response to the Vestarian Controversy. Separatists were mainly independent congregations who wanted to completely separate from the Church of England as they saw the Church as incapable of reforming itself. Protestant opposition didn’t directly threaten Elizabeth’s reign however caused damage by undermining Elizabeth’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church and challenging her views and authority as Queen. Arguably Protestantism damaged her reign significantly because it split Elizabeth’s primary supporters at critical periods of her reign when Elizabeth was fighting the more serious Catholic threat however, opposition was minimal and never achieved anything other than infuriating the Queen therefore, it did little to damage her reign.
Point 1:
The first Puritan attack on the Church of England came after the 1559 Settlement of which Puritan’s felt had not gone far enough and had many ‘Popish’ elements that went against their resolute Calvinist ideology. A key example of this was the Vestiarian Controversy in which Puritan clergy felt they could not accept their dress as laid out by the Act of Uniformity. This declared church ornamentation and the clergy’s vestments should be those set down in Edward VI’s 1549 Prayer Book: albs and copes to be worn during the Eucharist and surplices during other services. Many Puritan clergy saw albs and copes as ‘Catholic’ therefore refused to wear them and as many Bishops shared the same views they got away with it. However this deeply irritated Elizabeth and she put pressure on Archbishop Parker to ‘crack down’ on the dissidents and declared only those clergy who maintained “order and uniformity in all the external rites and ceremonies” could keep their livings. She also made her discontent clear in May 1565 by dismissing Thomas Sampson from his position as Dean of Christ Church at Oxford. Elizabeth’s actions led to the issuing of the Advertisements in March 1566 by Archbishop Parker which laid down the clear rules of clerical dress. Furthermore, Parker and Bishop Grindal summoned a meeting of the diocese of London where they were asked outright if they would support or reject clerical dress of which 37 refused to signify their support and were therefore deprived of their posts. The Vestiarian Controversy was significant as it showed the extent of the challenge to Elizabeth’s church settlement and the degree of non-conformity within the Church. This undermined Elizabeth and weakened her position as head of the Church which shows that it did cause some damage however, the vestiarian controversy showed the willingness of Elizabeth to uphold the Church settlement and the rules it imposed hence limiting the damage.
The first Puritan attack on the Church of England came after the 1559 Settlement of which Puritan’s felt had not gone far enough and had many ‘Popish’ elements that went against their resolute Calvinist ideology. A key example of this was the Vestiarian Controversy in which Puritan clergy felt they could not accept their dress as laid out by the Act of Uniformity. This declared church ornamentation and the clergy’s vestments should be those set down in Edward VI’s 1549 Prayer Book: albs and copes to be worn during the Eucharist and surplices during other services. Many Puritan clergy saw albs and copes as ‘Catholic’ therefore refused to wear them and as many Bishops shared the same views they got away with it. However this deeply irritated Elizabeth and she put pressure on Archbishop Parker to ‘crack down’ on the dissidents and declared only those clergy who maintained “order and uniformity in all the external rites and ceremonies” could keep their livings. She also made her discontent clear in May 1565 by dismissing Thomas Sampson from his position as Dean of Christ Church at Oxford. Elizabeth’s actions led to the issuing of the Advertisements in March 1566 by Archbishop Parker which laid down the clear rules of clerical dress. Furthermore, Parker and Bishop Grindal summoned a meeting of the diocese of London where they were asked outright if they would support or reject clerical dress of which 37 refused to signify their support and were therefore deprived of their posts. The Vestiarian Controversy was significant as it showed the extent of the challenge to Elizabeth’s church settlement and the degree of non-conformity within the Church. This undermined Elizabeth and weakened her position as head of the Church which shows that it did cause some damage however, the vestiarian controversy showed the willingness of Elizabeth to uphold the Church settlement and the rules it imposed hence limiting the damage.
Point 2:
Additionally, John Neale has argued that there was strong opposition to Elizabeth’s settlement from the House of Commons by a group of MP’s known as the ‘Puritan Choir’. He claims that these posed real opposition to Elizabeth and forced her into a more Protestant church settlement than she had otherwise wanted. Neale strongly emphasises the strength of Puritan influence in Parliament in challenging Elizabeth’s position, this seriously undermined Elizabeth’s position as it undermined her authority and the Church settlement. Throughout 1571 to 1572 a series of bills were introduced proposing further reforms particularly to the Book of Common Prayer which resulted in the Queen intervening to prevent Parliament from discussing religious matters further unless given permission by bishops however, in 1576 there was a Common’s petition for further moderate reform. This shows the non-conformity of Parliament as even though the Queen had made her intentions clear – that the Settlement was final – Parliament continued to push for further reform which undermined Elizabeth and caused damage to her reign as it destabilised government.
Additionally, John Neale has argued that there was strong opposition to Elizabeth’s settlement from the House of Commons by a group of MP’s known as the ‘Puritan Choir’. He claims that these posed real opposition to Elizabeth and forced her into a more Protestant church settlement than she had otherwise wanted. Neale strongly emphasises the strength of Puritan influence in Parliament in challenging Elizabeth’s position, this seriously undermined Elizabeth’s position as it undermined her authority and the Church settlement. Throughout 1571 to 1572 a series of bills were introduced proposing further reforms particularly to the Book of Common Prayer which resulted in the Queen intervening to prevent Parliament from discussing religious matters further unless given permission by bishops however, in 1576 there was a Common’s petition for further moderate reform. This shows the non-conformity of Parliament as even though the Queen had made her intentions clear – that the Settlement was final – Parliament continued to push for further reform which undermined Elizabeth and caused damage to her reign as it destabilised government.
Point 3:
Also, the Queen’s position was further undermined by Archbishop Grindal over the issue of prophesyings. These were gatherings where preachers could practice their sermons however Elizabeth felt this encouraged radicalism so preferred homilies (scripted sermons issued by the government). Despite the Queen’s wishes Grindal refused to suppress prophesyings which signifies a disregard for Elizabeth and her wishes thus suggests Protestantism damaged Elizabeth’s position.
Also, the Queen’s position was further undermined by Archbishop Grindal over the issue of prophesyings. These were gatherings where preachers could practice their sermons however Elizabeth felt this encouraged radicalism so preferred homilies (scripted sermons issued by the government). Despite the Queen’s wishes Grindal refused to suppress prophesyings which signifies a disregard for Elizabeth and her wishes thus suggests Protestantism damaged Elizabeth’s position.
Point 4:
Furthermore, throughout the 1580’s, Separatism emerged as a serious challenge to Elizabeth as they believed they could no longer rely on the Queen to bring about a ‘godly’ Church so sought to set up separate Church congregations. By doing so, they rejected Elizabeth’s position as Supreme Governor and the Erastian nature of the Church of England. Collinson claims that the Separatist challenge ‘assumed serious proportions’ in Norfolk and Suffolk which hence suggests that it had become an influential movement. This potentially caused serious damage to the Elizabethan Church as it indicated clear ideological divisions in Protestantism however, the view put forward by Collinson is incorrect as the numbers of supporters were insignificant and in reality, radical Protestants aimed to work within the Church for further reform rather than against it hence limiting the damage they caused.
Furthermore, throughout the 1580’s, Separatism emerged as a serious challenge to Elizabeth as they believed they could no longer rely on the Queen to bring about a ‘godly’ Church so sought to set up separate Church congregations. By doing so, they rejected Elizabeth’s position as Supreme Governor and the Erastian nature of the Church of England. Collinson claims that the Separatist challenge ‘assumed serious proportions’ in Norfolk and Suffolk which hence suggests that it had become an influential movement. This potentially caused serious damage to the Elizabethan Church as it indicated clear ideological divisions in Protestantism however, the view put forward by Collinson is incorrect as the numbers of supporters were insignificant and in reality, radical Protestants aimed to work within the Church for further reform rather than against it hence limiting the damage they caused.
Point 5:
Alike Separatism, the 1580’s saw the rise of Presbyterianism which was the belief that the Church of England should be further reformed along Calvinist lines in terms of structure and worship, in particular they believed there was no scriptural basis for the authority of bishops. This was a view held by Thomas Cartwright who, after a series of lectures questioning episcopacy, was sacked of his professorship at Cambridge University. This led to open opposition to the Church in the form of 2 Admonitions to Parliament which attacked ‘superstitious practices’ such as kneeling, and attacked the Book of Common Prayer. Whilst this weakened the authority of Elizabeth, the reaction to the Admonitions indicated that there was little support for Presbyterianism which was to remain a marginal movement. For example, the Admonitions appalled moderate Puritans such as Thomas Norton who felt that it caused much harm, while John Foxe and Thomas Sampson were anxious to distance themselves from what had been written. This shows that Presbyterianism was a very narrow movement which lacked the numbers to cause any real damage to the reign.
Alike Separatism, the 1580’s saw the rise of Presbyterianism which was the belief that the Church of England should be further reformed along Calvinist lines in terms of structure and worship, in particular they believed there was no scriptural basis for the authority of bishops. This was a view held by Thomas Cartwright who, after a series of lectures questioning episcopacy, was sacked of his professorship at Cambridge University. This led to open opposition to the Church in the form of 2 Admonitions to Parliament which attacked ‘superstitious practices’ such as kneeling, and attacked the Book of Common Prayer. Whilst this weakened the authority of Elizabeth, the reaction to the Admonitions indicated that there was little support for Presbyterianism which was to remain a marginal movement. For example, the Admonitions appalled moderate Puritans such as Thomas Norton who felt that it caused much harm, while John Foxe and Thomas Sampson were anxious to distance themselves from what had been written. This shows that Presbyterianism was a very narrow movement which lacked the numbers to cause any real damage to the reign.
Point 6:
In addition, the influence of Presbyterianism was crushed further by the actions of Whitgift. In a sermon at St Pauls he likened ‘Puritans’ to ‘Papists, Anabaptists and Rebels’ and issued three Articles which the clergy had to subscribe to. The articles involved acknowledging the royal supremacy, accepting the 39 Articles and declared the clergy had to agree that the prayer book contained ‘nothing contrary to the word of God’. The latter point caused some difficulty among Presbyterian’s who felt the prayer book contained Popish elements and therefore only gave conditional acceptance to the articles. Whitgift declared this was unacceptable and agreed a modified form of acceptance as long as the clergy agreed to use the prayer book. Whitgift’s actions led to the deprivation of key Presbyterian clergy such as George Gifford and Thomas Cartwright who had returned from exile. This ensured the decline of Presbyterianism and meant that Puritan clergy were unwilling to break with the Church thus, they did little damage to the Church which ensured religious unity by the end of the reign.
In addition, the influence of Presbyterianism was crushed further by the actions of Whitgift. In a sermon at St Pauls he likened ‘Puritans’ to ‘Papists, Anabaptists and Rebels’ and issued three Articles which the clergy had to subscribe to. The articles involved acknowledging the royal supremacy, accepting the 39 Articles and declared the clergy had to agree that the prayer book contained ‘nothing contrary to the word of God’. The latter point caused some difficulty among Presbyterian’s who felt the prayer book contained Popish elements and therefore only gave conditional acceptance to the articles. Whitgift declared this was unacceptable and agreed a modified form of acceptance as long as the clergy agreed to use the prayer book. Whitgift’s actions led to the deprivation of key Presbyterian clergy such as George Gifford and Thomas Cartwright who had returned from exile. This ensured the decline of Presbyterianism and meant that Puritan clergy were unwilling to break with the Church thus, they did little damage to the Church which ensured religious unity by the end of the reign.
Point 7:
Furthermore, the strength of the Church of England in the later years of the reign meant that any challenges were easily dealt with and had only a limited affect. For example the Martin Marprelate Tracts of 1588 demonstrated ‘oppositionist Puritanism’ and attacked bishops such as Whitgift who was brandished ‘a plain antichrist’. This arguably could have damaged the reign however the Church actively defended itself with Richard Bancroft preaching a sermon asserting the rights of bishops and the Dean of Salisbury vigorously promoted the Episcopal nature of the Church. Also, the Church of England was broad enough to incorporate Puritan attitudes within the Church thus limiting the outside threat. Overall, this limits the influence of Protestant opposition so that by the end of the reign the Church of England was almost entirely accepted thus showing that there was little damage.
Furthermore, the strength of the Church of England in the later years of the reign meant that any challenges were easily dealt with and had only a limited affect. For example the Martin Marprelate Tracts of 1588 demonstrated ‘oppositionist Puritanism’ and attacked bishops such as Whitgift who was brandished ‘a plain antichrist’. This arguably could have damaged the reign however the Church actively defended itself with Richard Bancroft preaching a sermon asserting the rights of bishops and the Dean of Salisbury vigorously promoted the Episcopal nature of the Church. Also, the Church of England was broad enough to incorporate Puritan attitudes within the Church thus limiting the outside threat. Overall, this limits the influence of Protestant opposition so that by the end of the reign the Church of England was almost entirely accepted thus showing that there was little damage.
Conclusion:
To conclude, Protestant opposition did little to directly damage Elizabeth’s reign as they never threatened her directly and any opposition that did arise, had little support and was easily suppressed by Elizabeth or her bishops. The only damage Protestantism did cause was a break in religious unity throughout the 1580’s however in the entire context of the reign, it had a minimal impact.
To conclude, Protestant opposition did little to directly damage Elizabeth’s reign as they never threatened her directly and any opposition that did arise, had little support and was easily suppressed by Elizabeth or her bishops. The only damage Protestantism did cause was a break in religious unity throughout the 1580’s however in the entire context of the reign, it had a minimal impact.
To what extent had Elizabeth achieved stable relations with the foreign powers by 1572?
Introduction-
define "stable"
e.g. good relationships on the border with Scotland, unlikely to face French or Spanish invasion, not at war with other countries.
Make a judgement- to what extent was there stability overall?
define "stable"
e.g. good relationships on the border with Scotland, unlikely to face French or Spanish invasion, not at war with other countries.
Make a judgement- to what extent was there stability overall?
For
Paragraph 1- France Positives
Paragraph 3 - Scotland Positives
Paragraph 5- Spain Positives
|
Counter
Paragraph 2- France Negatives
Paragraph 4- Scotland Negatives
Paragraph 6- Spain Negatives
|
Conclusion-
Repeat judgement from the intro
Repeat judgement from the intro