From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Historiography for Elizabeth I

---

ON THE RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT OF 1559

Haigh: “Queen had tried to contain conservative opposition in the Lords, not radical pressure in the Commons”

PRESBYTERIANISM

Collinson: “Presbyterians' were only a minority and their organisation was broken by 1590. Non Presbyterian Protestants were much more numerous and should be seen as part of mainstream Elizabethan Protestantism”

Contents 1 Catholicism (1560’s) 1.1 “Impact is little, littered with errors” 2 The Puritan Threat in Parliament 2.1 His Evidence 3 The Revisionist View 4 Parliament (House of Commons) 5 MAJOR OPPOSITION 6 Marriage 7 Faction 7.1 Revisionist View 8 Two Key Decades 9 Traditional View 10 Comments

Catholicism (1560’s)

Stems from debate in the 1560’s over the survival of RCism–McGrath+Bossy vs. Haigh+Doran

Bossy: “seminary priests were critical in saving Roman Catholicism from extinction and created a ‘new’ Roman Catholic community which owed much to continental influences”

Haigh: “Influence of Seminary Priests much exaggerated –as has the growth of recusansy, Mission brought nothing new to English R.Catholicism and made numerous mistakes, turning existing Roman Catholic groups throughout the country into a ‘rump community’ confined to the gentry families in the North”

Suggests that the Priests do not go further than the S.East as have come from ferry ports.

“Impact is little, littered with errors”

Doran: “Says Haigh right in some respects eg: Idea of continuity between RC Communities of 1560’s and recusants of 1570’s and 1580’s. Agrees with Haigh that Priests did not bring with them a new form of ‘continental RCism’ Agrees that Priests did make some mistakes. Thinks Haigh to harsh in criticising over-reliance on gentry”

Agrees that not enough go North and that they waste too much time with gentry in private chapels.

'Doran: “Polarisation in Catholicism, increasing numbers conforming contrasted to those who are still recusants. Further into the reign more pressure is applied on Catholics, and it becomes harder to retain commitment to Catholicism, especially with the appointment of new Protestant ministers in the 1580’s. More hard-line people dig their heels in and magistrates + informers keep an eye on priests and prominent Catholics.

The Puritan Threat in Parliament

Neale: That an influential group between 12 and 16 Marian exiles led a Puritan Choir of perhaps 100 MPs. At times they were exceptionally powerful, for example Neale argued that in 1559 as a result of their leadership and pressure they forced a conservative minded Elizabeth to make a more Protestant religious settlement that she wanted.

The Puritan Choir is presented as continuously pressurising Elizabeth during every Parliamentary meeting, i.e.:

• Strickland’s 1571 Bill
• Wentworth’s 1576 attacks on clerical abuses
• Turner 1584 Bill for a Presbyterian structure
• Turner’s 1587 ‘Bill and Book’ (Cope’s Bill)

He argued that they made a significant contribution to the development of parliamentary opposition, and that it was an organised group who arranged meetings and tactics. He argues that they were responsible for the long term rise of the Commons and thus a cause of the Civil Wars.

His Evidence

Much of the evidence for the existence of the Puritan Choir rests with the unreliable work of a seventeenth century Puritan sympathiser Simond D’Ewes, whose interests were highly partisan and ideas based on anonymous diaries. Neale as well took a Satirical Poem of 1566 as evidence for the existence of the Puritan Choir.

The Revisionist View

Due to recent research into Parliament, there now appears to be a consensus among historians that Neale’s views are unrealistic. Elton, Graves, Loach and Jones have rejected his views and created a new interpretation.

It seems that the Puritan Choir did not actually exist and that the influence of extreme Puritans who fled Marian persecution was greatly overstated by Neale. The strength of Puritans in the Commons was hugely overplayed by Neale. Doran and others argue that rather than a radical Puritan leadership enjoying the support and confidence of the House, the few individuals were unrepresentative, speaking mainly for themselves

Wentworth was sent to the Tower in 1576 not by the Queen (Neale) but by the House itself.

The Commons did not even make a formal protest when Elizabeth had Cope and 4 other MPs sent to the Tower in 1587 after Cope’s Bill.

No evidence of Marian exiles being a large group (about 4 genuine– Loach) others were incoherent set of individuals who did not provide leadership.

The perceived influence of Puritans over elections in the Commons was overstated by Neale. Successes were limited to very small boroughs under the influence of lay Puritan patrons, failed even in Puritan strongholds of Essex and Suffolk (Doran).

Parliament (House of Commons)

Traditional View: Parliament was an evolutionary body

Orthodox View: Parliament was an increasingly assertive body with continual opposition (Neale)

Revisionist View: Parliament’s legislative role most important, co-operation key theme (Elton)

Post-Revisionist:

• Focusing on Political aspect which was to put pressure on EI
• 1560’s Privy Council using Parliament to oppose Elizabeth
• Legislative role important as well.
• Fairly harmonious but issues arise.
• Not increasingly assertive and coherent (Graves)

MAJOR OPPOSITION

• RELIGION (1559/71/87)
• MARRIAGE (1563/67)
• SUCCESSION (1584/86)
• PARLIAMENTARY PRIVELEDGE (1598)

Graves: “When there were clashes, they were of no long term significance mostly because the opposition was neither organised nor strong enough to prevent a serious challenge to the Queen

Elton: “Stressed the role in the House of Lords, rather than Commons in initializing legislation. This was particularly true after 1571 when Cecil moved to the Lords.

“Many of the members of the upper house had such powers of patronage that they were able to control or influence members of the Commons and ensure that they did their bidding. They limited the lower House’s independence”

Marriage

Haigh: “She did not want to hand over any political power to a husband because of women’s position at time. 1561 was a turning point, due to Dudley’s wife dying in ‘mysterious circumstances’ rumours grew and Elizabeth finally heeded Cecil’s advice not to marry Dudley”

Diplomatic manoeuvres used for political advantage and Elizabeth probably intended to remain single.

Doran: “Unexplained, she never ruled out the possibility of marriage and acknowledged that it was her duty to provide an heir in the first half of her reign. Image of the ‘virgin Queen’ was not deliberate. She did not need to be married to appear as a good ruler”

A foreign marriage raised many issues, xenophobia and politically, and she may be dragged into wars and pay, a husband may take Queen out of country leaving a viceroy. Birth of male child might threaten England’s national independence. Many people spoke out against foreign candidates.

Plowden: “Suggests early experience of the correlation between sex and violent death was deep in her subconscious”

Taylor Smith: Elizabeth adopts a male role of dominance, aggression etc. which made it impossible for the subservient role of marriage”

Alvaro de la Quadra (Sp. Ambassador): “Elizabeth is unhealthy and cannot conceive and bear children” Dudley + Queen tried to murder his wife.

Jordan: “Avoided marriage due to the risk of losing control like Mary I, not marrying elevated her rank as a female ruler”

Hurstfield: “Marriage and motherhood would temporarily limit the authority and power to rule – she would hate this”

Faction

Camden, Neale, Read:

Emphasised E’s skill in balancing factions at her court.

Revisionist View

Haigh: She used it for:

• Showing off to public/foreign visitors
• Develop relationships between major courtiers
• Flattery and Political Loyalty

1560’s Dudley was a political threat as he was an important religious and military patron.

Broadly the Queen controls these factions (Dudley and Cecil)

His criticisms or Elizabeth and her management of the court.

• Competition in court was too intense.
• Produces childlike behaviour and near dangerous (eg Essex 1597 doesn’t get promoted & stays away from court and parliament, sulking).
• However it was always likely to emerge as courtiers want to advance.

Two Key Decades

1565-1566 Between Dudley and Howard, accusations against each other-Dudley accused of killing his wife. Dudley then accuses Howard of misconduct in Ireland. Haigh believes that it almost gets to the point of civil war. Courtiers use certain colours to demonstrate their loyalty.

1590’s Tensions develop between Essex and Robert Cecil, particularly over the issue of foreign policy. Essex wanted a active foreign policy and Cecil a more cautious foreign policy.

Essex made Lord Deputy in Ireland, believes Cecil is trying to get rid of him. Essex killed in 1601 by an attempted rebellion to try to destabilise Elizabeth.

Traditional View

Camden: “Elizabeth was perceived to have balanced factions and a politically stable court” (From writing in James’ reign – Overly complementary towards Elizabeth due to disenchantment over James’ reign)

Elizabeth makes key decisions throughout the reign. The Personal rivalries do not impede her. 1601 only example of it getting out of hand. The Privy Council is a natural forum for debate and government policies were successful.

Comments

These notes are aimed at A Level history students.

Originally written by Archie Maitland on TSR Forums.