Abstract: England has been accredited with a unique religion – Anglicanism – that owes its genesis to special circumstances during the period of the Tudor Monarchy (1584 – 1603). Born at a time when Continental Reformation was sweeping across Europe in the 16th Century, this religion, since its inception – held a very middle ground – a virtue attributed to the ‘radicalism’ of the ‘conservative’ rulers who moulded it. The ‘Post – Reformation’ monarchs didn’t, however, contribute equally to this development – while Henry VIII started it and Edward IV developed it – Mary I degenerated it back to Catholicism and Elizabeth I radicalised it. What emerged was an intermingled formula of sovereignty and religion that manifested itself into a National Church during the reign of the Last Tudor, Elizabeth. She gave it her personal hue, metamorphosing a ‘confused’ state of law and religion into a state of ‘peaceful stability’ with an ‘Elizabethan religion’. It was a ‘legal’ religion, neither Catholic nor Protestant, plotted along lines of pragmatic statecraft and heavily politicised in matters of innovation, and execution. This paper seeks to explore the ‘infancy’ of Anglicanism in the Elizabethan Era (1558 – 1603), interpreting its birth as the inevitable consequence of an undaunted royal personality and consummate politician’s ‘talent’ that were personified in Elizabeth. Questions of concern are provoked – How did royal countenance chisel the religion?  How much did the religion aid its genitor? And did this new religion legitimize the politico – social currents of the era? Or vice – versa?

Keywords: Anglicanism; Post – Reformation monarchs; Middle Ground; Elizabeth I; National Church; Catholic; Protestant.

“He that reigneth on high, to who is given all power in heaven, and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth  …”[1]

Elizabethan England flouted this supreme Catholic conviction – flamboyantly. And with piety, politics and success!

England, a country privileged in queens, customs and culture, has found her place in the pages of history as the famous bastion of Imperialism, Literature and Anglicanism. She had her own share of medievalism, civil strife and political cerebration, before metamorphosing to her present state, unique yet ever changing with the tide of time. Discarding the two foremost qualifications for they solely claim an exclusive right to a lifetime of scrutiny, this paper seeks to deal with the history of Anglicanism[2] in the context of Elizabethan England, particularly scrutinizing its inception, its infant manifestations and the many manipulations it underwent in its path to becoming the “Goldilocks settlement; neither too hot nor too cold”[3] that paved the abutment of the Golden Age[4] of the Virginia[5].

Elizabeth_top&bottom copy2.jpg
Elizabeth I: Brokering a lasting legacy ?

Anglicanism in England rose from a very interesting background of personal whims and convictions – in every sense religion became a very ‘personal’ tool, welded to meet private ends. Tudor kingship, like all other monarchical tendencies of its time, was impressed with the doctrine of cuius region eius religio[6], amalgamating the “nation”, “subject”, and “self” in a singular plane. The frenzied country was a perfect puzzle in the greater picture of 16th century Europe that was itself witnessing much religious conflict: the Reformation[7] was at full swing in the Protestant hinterland of Germany, and it transgressed its boundaries, seeping into the devoutly Catholic continent, provoking pangs of frequent heretical outbursts. However, unlike her neighbours, Tudor England “knew no moral or religious boundaries beyond its will”[8] thus imparting an unparalleled uniramous essence to the ecclesia anglicana[9]. The Church was structured along the lines of medieval Catholicism, hesitant schism from the Holy See and pragmatic compromise; indeed, it can boast of an exceptional history. The foundation was laid by Henry VIII, in 1532 – 1534, in the aftermath of his “Great Matter”[10], though at this juncture, religion was Catholic without the recognition of the Pope[11]. Royal authority gained supremacy over Papal authority in the ecclesiastical organizations of the land and no change was reflected in the fundamental ceremonialism and belief system. In 1547, with the ascendancy of the Protestant boy – king, Edward VI, Protestantism came into favour[12]. Edward’s death in 1553 preluded the accession of his sister Mary I and she undid the state religion, reverting to Catholicism[13]. It is against this backdrop that the paper will examine the genesis and growth of “Elizabethan” Anglicanism.

“After all the stormy, tempestuous, and blustering windy weather of Queen Mary … it pleased God to send England a calm and quiet season, a clear and lovely sunshine, a quitsest from former broils of a turbulent estate, and a world of blessing by good Queen Elizabeth.”

Raphael Holinshed.[14]

Mary I: Her ‘Spanish’ conviction burned on Protestant candles.

In historiography, the Marian period (1553 – 1558) is portrayed as a stark contrast against its Elizabethan counterpart, labelled with failure and oppression. Perhaps, this very mentality prevailed during the change of hands of the throne in 1558, accounting for the many successes of the Elizabethan policies. Mary wasn’t the first woman ruler to wear the crown – beholding her were the infamous legacies of Matilda, and Eleanor of Aquitine, both queens who made disastrous turnouts of the royal responsibility vested on them. Nevertheless, despite her sex, Mary inherited the Kingdom in popular joy, only to reinforce the misogynist’s vox populi – “God by his sentence hath dejected all woman from empire and dominion above man.”[15] She died in despair in 1558, leaving behind an England “ragged and torn with misgovernment”[16], bankrupt, and embroiled in war with France[17]. The keynote of the reign might be “sterility”[18], yet many a mentality and ideology brewed up to make England receptive to the Elizabethan cathect. As D. M. Loades[19] states, “the association of persecuting Catholicism with foreign domination[20] killed the conservative Church of Henry VIII and sowed the seeds of a Protestant nationalism.” “Equally important, if rather less obvious, the failure of Wyatt’s Rebellion[21] and the relative success of the ‘constitutional’ opposition to Philip’s coronation helped to create among the gentry an awareness of their developing political role in the commonwealth”. The “parliamentary lessons of November and December 1555” lived on. “The religious exiles in Germany and Switzerland temporarily freed from the restrictions of royal supremacy were able to conduct liturgical and intellectual experiments which laid the foundation of English puritanism, and to dabble with doctrines of resistance which were to become of great importance in the following century.” The concept of England as the “Elect Nation”[22] emerged and Providence[23] dominated the ideological sphere, and alongside these developments, emerged the idea of a ‘limited’ monarchy[24] adhering to popular consent. The closing Catholic curtains of the country encountered a strengthened surge of Protestantism that imprinted upon the nation its own socio –economic[25] and political consequences.

“A Domino factum est istud: et est mirabile in oculis nostris.”[26] – Elizabeth I.

The Protestant Deborah ruled over the Elect Nation.

On November 17, 1558, Elizabeth ascended the throne, “amidst no glimmering of the splendid future in store for her”[27]. It was “an extraordinarily smooth accession” for the Age – “the transition of power was seamless: swift, open, legal and unchallenged”[28]. Circumstances had spoken otherwise – she was a woman, and illegitimate under Canon and Common Law[29]. Apologies against female rule were in circulation, claiming it to be anathematic to the “Great Chain of Being”[30] and the Divine Will[31]

For who can deny but it repugneth [opposes] to nature that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see, that the weak, the sick and impotent persons, shall nourish and keep the whole and strong, and, finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discrete and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness, their counsel foolishness, and judgment frenzy, if it be rightly considered … Nature, I say, doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment…”[32]

It was at this instance (and the first of the many to come) wherein religion came to her rescue. She was “mere English”[33] and Protestant: a syllogism that overwhelmed the staunchest of Protestants including Knox, Calvin, Aylmer and Humphrey. The sympathetic environment these Protestants found themselves in, gratified them into “affirming the legitimacy of gynococracy”[34] over the legitimacy of ius gentium[35]. Furthermore, they emphasized the “divine origin of the political government”[36], legitimizing the Absolutist State and Protestant Commonwealth[37] that was yet to come, banking heavily on Elizabethan Machiavellianism[38].

“The forces that shape our world are greater than all of us, Majesty. How can I promise that they’ll conspire in your favour, even though you are the Queen?”[39]

Religion and politics found a mutual, spontaneous expression in the royal policy from the early hours of the Elizabethan reign. Which drove the other remains a cryptic question, yet the consequent manifestations of this interaction yielded unprecedented epiphenomena. The foremost instances can be traced to her constitution of the Privy Council[40] and the prenominal politics of the Age. These early development were outflanked by more radical ones in court ceremony, legislation, treatment of religious denominations at home and most importantly in foreign policy.

“The kingdom is entirely in the hands of young folks, heretics and traitors. The old people and the Catholics are dissatisfied, but dare not open their lips … We have lost a kingdom, body and soul.” Count de Feria.[41]


The Tudor “Traffia”.

Along with a “most parlous and degenerate state”[42], Elizabeth also inherited her sister’s Privy Council – Catholics with ardent conviction and whose gall and wormwood advice led Protestants to the stake. Determined to “direct [her] actions by good advice and council, and not to be ruled by councillors, the Queen “contrived to create a working partnership between the old fashioned xenophobic and anti – clerical magnates of the kind who served her father so well, and the new Protestant nationalists.”[43] “Power centred in the court itself, in the immediate vicinity of the royal person”[44], yet several satellites existed – potentially playing out power in high politics: a situation that recommended the holding of “these different, but not incompatible groups together” in “a realistic policy of social discipline”[45]. She adhered to it, creating in the process, “a small country governed by a tiny elite”[46] chosen on the criteria of aristocracy and meritocracy. She reappointed the pliable fragment of the Marian council[47] but her “Tudor Taffia”[48] dominantly comprised Protestant lay – men[49], “zealous idealists who meant to force the English state into a mould acceptable to the wrathful and righteous God of the Reformers.”[50] Nevertheless, their religious leanings were subordinated to their being a consummate political “creative minority who were able to entrench themselves in power during a decade of relative peace”[51]; indeed, they “belonged to the ‘politique’ group of Englishmen to whom might be applied the description – non ex quercu sed ex salice orti[52]. They were the “lynchpin of Elizabethan administration”[53] representing “the middle opinion of the nation, containing neither Catholic nor Protestant zealots”[54] and imprinting this signature pattern in the governance of the upcoming decades.

“Elizabeth: I simply ask can any man, in truth, serve two masters and be faithful to both?

Lord: Madam, this is heresy!

Elizabeth: No, Your Grace, this is common sense … which is a most English virtue.”[55]

The Queen in Parliament : “A most English Virtue”.

Undoubtedly the greatest legacy of these “Moderates” in governance lay in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559 which emerged against a perilous background and achieved a success, unprecedented. She inaugurated the first Parliament of her reign with a prime task – “well – making of laws for the according and uniting of the people of this realm into an uniform order of religion”[56]; however, the bills encountered obstacles in the House of Lords, before their legality was established “in the 1559 Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, the Royal Injunctions of 1559 and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which were passed in the convocation of 1563 but did not become part of statutory law until 1571”[57]. The Settlement arranged “the Government of the Church, its rites and liturgies, in such a way that the majority of (ideally all) men and women could in conscience subscribe to it. It was necessary to cast the net as broadly as possible, since, once the formula had been decided, there was no room politically for dissent. The Church of England was not conceived as a religious denomination … it was the Church for all the People of England”[58]. At a glance, the Settlement was wholly Protestant, severing all ties with the Papacy and establishing royal supremacy over English ecclesiastical institutions; yet the case was not so.  It church was also “ceremony – centred, but not popish; reformed yet Episcopalian”[59]. The Settlement proved to be the daring enterprise of a ruler, who unlike her predecessors, held no powerful and intransigent views on religion – baffling both the Catholic and the Protestant, as she sought to reinforce it through ceremony[60], scriptural texts[61] and state coercion[62]. It persecuted Roman Catholics, harassed the extreme Puritans and encouraged the first generation of Anglican Bishops and their protégés who extolled the structure of the Church as one instituted for practical convenience rather than divine command[63]. Because of “the hybrid nature of the Elizabethan Church” the Settlement had been called the via media – a middle way between Rome and Geneva. It’s of interest to examine in detail, three of the subtle aspects of this “Religious Revolution of 1559” that were subject to heavy tampering from quarters other than religious –  the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Book of Common Prayer, and the treatment of the clergy.

 “… the Quenes Highnes is thonelye supreme Governour of this Realme and of all other her Highnes Dominions and Countreis, aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Thinges or Causes as Temporall…”[64]

The Act of Supremacy of 1558 empowered Elizabeth to “re-established the position of the prince over the Church did so by reviving several Henrician statutes repealed under Mary. Revived were Acts cutting off the flow of appeals and money to Rome, removing the papacy from the consecration of English bishops, and reaffirming the submission of the clergy to the Crown. The Henrician Act of Supremacy was not revived, but essentially all of the authority granted to the Crown in that Act was reclaimed for the monarch[65][66]. Rather than employing the title “Supreme Head of the Church” – she settled for “Supreme Governor”, with an “&c” put at the end of her designations. “Although designed to placate the Catholics, the change also pleased some Protestants who believed that the headship of the Church ‘is due to Christ alone, and cannot belong to any human being soever’, and were particularly uneasy at the prospect of a woman assuming a quasi-priestly role in the Church”[67]. It was “both a bold and cautious step; bold because implicitly it maintained the theory of the English Reformation that the supremacy of the Papacy was a usurpation of the Crown’s ancient authority, and that no parliamentary stature was needed to confer the headship of the Church on the monarch; cautious because after all, no more appeared than the words ‘et cetera’ which” left the Catholics optimistic[68]. “The new title, however, made no difference in practice to the extent of royal authority over the Church, as Elizabeth exercised the same rights over religion as had her father, and was determined to keep religion firmly under the control of the Crown”.[69] “Jursidictionally it was a total victory for the Queen, creating a thoroughly Erastian Church[70] which Elizabeth was empowered to govern by royal commission. It was a bargain[71], certainly, but not a compromise”[72] – a deftly plotted bargain that preserved the religious harmony of her reign to the end.

“… the service in this Church of England these many years hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understood not, so that they have heard with their ears only, and their hearts, spirit, and mind have not been edified [improved], thereby.”[73]

A bargain ‘unbargained’ for.

The Settlement of 1559 established as the legal liturgy of the Church of England, the Book of Common Prayer – an ingenious fusion of the Prayer Book of 1549 and Archbishop Cranmer’s Forty – Two Articles of 1552. It roundly denounced Purgatory and the Mass, affirmed justification by faith as well as Predestination; “and in the delivery of the sacrament to communicants the Zwinglian wording of the second Edwardian compilation was tempered by the addition of the Catholic wording of the first”[74] – “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life; take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving”. However debatable is the enforcement and impact of the Book on the English masses, the text proved to be a strong apology to the official religious policy; for instance, it provided a ‘textual legitimacy’ for the ‘compromised setup’ of ceremony in the established Church –

“Some are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these latter days that the burden of them was intolerable . . . . Christ’s gospel is not a ceremonial law, as much of Moses’ law was, but it is a religion to serve God, not in bondage of the figure or shadow, but in the freedom of spirit, being content only with those ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and godly discipline…”[75]

Elizabeth edited-The-Golden-Age-Gallery-7.jpg
It’s a show business !

And true, to the ‘above declaration’, both the Queen and Church adhered to ceremonialism. The Ornaments’ Rubric was adapted in 1559, candles, crucifixes and other furnishings were kept in private chapels, sermons were followed by “goodly anthem sung”[76], St. George’s Day and other days of traditional ceremonialism were observed and the chivalrous Order of the Knights of the Garter was retained. “The main days of ceremony at court were the great feasts of the Church”[77] in the old Catholic calendar[78]. The Catholic clerical hierarchy, sans the Pope and the Cardinals, were maintained and they wore Catholic vestments, even draped in the cope in festive days.  Her most famous triumph over the Puritanical anathema to culture was the patronage of theatre and the founding of The Queen’s Men. This demeaned her in the eyes of the Puritans, yet “her metier was queen, and queenship had ceremony as its essence.”[79] “Her attitude to religious ceremony was not mere expediency, nor was it merely to do with religion.”[80] Tudor royal ceremonial was intrinsically religious, and “to abolish Church ceremony was to eliminate royal ceremony as well”[81]. Furthermore, the Age was one of display and ceremony had a marked place in English Public Life – as a statement of power. The Queen herself was a very political creature who designed her aura to provided “intelligible ceremonial with a very distinct religious and political agenda”[82]. The crowds were to be persuaded with “a sense of reassurance, a sense of national unity, a sense of her sacred place in the life of a revivified nation”[83]. In this context, this mixed trivia of potlatch was the outcome of the Elizabethan intention to re – establish the intention of ritual .i.e., not only the mere re – enactment of medieval formalities but also the invention of new ones. It had to be ‘seen’ and ‘felt’, that “England [was] being guided by the acute intelligence of its monarch”[84] and as the reign progressed her ceremonial surrounding became more inventive. The ceremonies of tilt, masque, pageants, procession and drama assumed an organic life of their own: “what worked on one ceremonial occasion becoming part of the repertoire and feeding the mythology, the symbolism”[85]; culminating into the Cult of the Divine Virgin.

“To your text, Mr Dean. To your text.”[86]

In the tempest of this arrangement, the merum motus of the ‘new monarchy and religion’ came down heavily on the English Clergy. The Queen had contempt for this body, for which clerical representation of whatever colour had been excluded from her council at her accession, and developed the practice of humiliating it in public[87]. “There was no attempt to return to the system by which the crown selected bishops and then appointed them without the use of the conge d’etire and the formality of appointment by the chapter. The commissions issued to the new bishops no longer included the phrase that they were to hold office during pleasure.”[88] The hatred, however, wasn’t one – sided: the Clergy – whether Catholic or Protestant, refused to conform to her policies. They had to operate in an environment that was neither Roman Catholic nor Genevan Protestant – in ornamented chapels, in the garb of Popery, preaching heretical texts in a sinful tongue, and in a soil whose ruler didn’t care for sermons – one of the chief features of morning services in Protestant Churches. The Marian Clergy – with the exception of Kitchin of Llandaff – refused to accept the Royal Supremacy and was deprived of their offices and property. The Protestant Clergy also showed profound reluctance, but as they yielded to the royal command, they found consolation in their own interpretation of the Scriptures and justification of the ‘contemptuous practices’. Nonetheless, “out of 9,400 clergy in England only 192 refused the oath of supremacy”[89]. The surrender of the pastorate was attributed, by some historians, to the “overwhelming acceptance by the laity of the religious changes imposed upon them”. A silent factor, however, operated – the Elizabethan victimization that ensured “the ranks of the papists [to fall] almost of their own accord”[90]. “The queen’s behaviour towards the clergy must be seen in part as a product of the attitudes of her leading advisers and supporters”[91]. The Crown zealously guarded its supremacy, ensuring that the body remained a politically dependee upon the will of the Sovereign and breed neither censure nor rebellion.

Did Elizabeth replicate her father’s reality?

As the Elizabethan reign progressed, Anglicanism assumed a refined and definite identity. After the initial settlement, the Queen proved resilient in her religious policies, making minor, hesitant (Protestant) changes in the later decades. The complex temperament of the Monarch and the Church bred both Catholic[92] and Protestant[93] discontent that posed threats to ideological and physical security to realm. The Settlement made subtle concessions to both parties – perhaps, too subtle changes to be noticed as echoed by Professor J.B. Black – “it may be questioned whether, in view of the Queen’s moderation, the average Englishman was conscious at first of any marked change in the ministration of religion beyond, perhaps, the use of English in the service in place of Latin, and the Communion in two kinds”[94]. It was a politico – religious coalition, characterized by a Church that allowed for loose religious convictions within the Montmartre of Common Law, the absence of an official statement of faith, and want of royal countenance to the conciliatory ‘interpretations’ simply to keep that English churchgoer “who, in one generation, had lived through the Henrician Reformation, the Edwardian Reformation and the Marian Counter-Reformation”[95]; united and loyal. Nevertheless, since its inception, the ‘manipulated religion’ has come under the attack of brutal criticism, regarding its essence and the extent of ‘piety’ of the Monarch who made a meal of it.

“But I am no prophet. I see no more than the shadows of ghosts.”[96]

Indeed, Elizabeth was no prophet in this business. Mainstream Elizabethan Protestantism and the Anglican Church (of the distant future) that grew out of it were the consequences of her personal conviction[97] as well as gift of “a peculiar political intelligence and the ability to empathise with, and understand, and manipulate, crowds”[98]. Unlike the monarchs who preceded her, she paid much more attention to the reality of parliamentary consent and strength of religion, be it Catholicism or Protestantism[99]. She ‘craftily failed’ to recognize an English dynasty that belonged to either, harping on the bigger picture of ‘continuity’ between these two extremes; for which the realm stayed put on middle grounds of Adiaphora[100], and developed hereafter. Consequently, Elizabethan accounts, contemporary and modern, spoke in tongues of Elizabethan Catholicism[101] and Elizabethan Puritanism[102] – religious trends that progressed undisruptive into the lethal causes of Separatism that launched the English Revolution. However seductive it is to portray the reign as an epoch of ‘perfect religious equilibrium’ –it was not so; the scales were adjusted according to the requirements of “worldly necessity” and instincts of political pragmatism. The state policy reeked of an Elizabethan duality[103], hinged between faith and conformity. Inevitably, the ‘true religion’ – “her [hypocritic] religion [that] lay between Man and his Maker”[104] invited assaults from both quarters of Catholic polemics and Puritan critics[105]. Despite the inclination for a ‘charade’ of moderation, she failed to keep up the pretence at the end of her reign, where Puritanism gained ascendancy over the ‘others’. Yet hers’ was the reign, when religion was successfully manipulated and given space to ‘adapt’ inturn – an unpredicted departure from the earlier patterns wherein religion either victimized the reign or got victimized in turn. It was also the time when religion took a set – back, to become a detached observer in the courtship of the monarch and the subject; a seldom participant in the play as the ‘legitimizer’ of ‘theories’[106] of political acceptance before gradually retreating as a ‘weak’ element of indifferent utterance[107] for the English nation – state in its quest for ‘legal’ secularism. Perhaps, this was Elizabeth’s greatest legacy – she gave her nation something to worship above religion: herself …. And law!


[1] Regnans in Excelsis, the Papal Bull of 1570. Decreed by Pope Pius V, this Catholic Declaration excommunicated Elizabeth as “the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime” who had “seized the crown and monstrously usurped [siezed] the place of supreme head of the Church in all England together with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom—which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits—to a miserable ruin”. [Source – Elizabeth Shostak and Sonia G. Benson, Elizabethan World: Primary Sources (London: Thomas Gale, 2007).] It annulled her subjects’ allegiance, making sedition not only a Catholic religious duty but also conferred the status of crusader upon any Catholic ruler who declared war on England and unseated the Queen.  It legitimised the Northern Risings of 1569, and preluded numerous Catholic conspiracies such as the Ridolfi Plot of 1570, the Desmond Plot of 1579, the Throckmorton Plot of 1583 and the Babington Plot of 1586. It also witnessed an increasing trend of suppression of the Catholics in the ‘moderate’ religious policy of Elizabethan England.

[2] The term “Anglicanism” didn’t exist in 16th century England and it first appeared in Charles Kingsley’s The Water Babies (1838). It didn’t denote a distinct branch of historical Christianity and nor was Elizabeth an Anglican; she espoused the Church of Christ – the English manifestation of the Oriental Church of Eastern Orthodoxy. The word ‘Anglican’ originates in ‘ecclesia anglicana’, a Medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 that means the ‘English Church’. Adherents of Anglicanism are called Anglicans. As an adjective, “Anglican” is used to describe the people, institutions and churches, as well as the liturgical traditions and theological concepts, developed by the Church of England. As a noun, an Anglican is a member of a church in the Anglican Communion. The word is also used by followers of separated groups which have left the communion or have been founded separately from it, though this is sometimes considered as a misuse. [Source – “Anglicanism”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 15 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglicanism&action=history>.]

[3] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[4] Historians often depict it as the golden age in English history. The symbol of Britannia was first used in 1572, and often thereafter, to mark the Elizabethan age as a renaissance that inspired national pride through classical ideals, international expansion, and naval triumph over the Spanish — at the time, a rival kingdom much hated by the people of the land. This “golden age” represented the apogee of the English Renaissance and saw the flowering of poetry, music and literature. [Source – “Elizabethan Era”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 20 February 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_era>.]

[5] Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen of England.

[6] “The religion of the people is determined by that of the Prince”. [Source – David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).]

[7] Continental Reformation of the 16th Century (Lutheran, Calvin and Zwinglian Restoration).

[8] Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011). The author refers to the context of Theodore Beza’s observation of the ‘new Political model’ of Elizabethan England; for him neither the Papacy left, nor did the Reformation reach England. The strength of these religions got transferred to the Crown, which developed both into a mixed constitution, endemic only to the kingdom.

[9] Latin for “English Church”.

[10] Henry VIII’s desire to annul his first dynastic (Spanish) marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn, in desperation for a male heir. Pope Clement VII was requested for an annulment but he refused on grounds of canonical impediments. In between 1532 – 1534, the parting of ways between England and Rome was initiated by Parliamentary remedy. Henry VIII divorced Catherine and married Anne in 1533. Subsequently, laws were passed in the Parliament to recognize Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church of England (1534 Acts of Supremacy) and declare Anne’s issues as the King’s rightful heirs (1533 Act of Succession). A string of ‘Anti – Papal’ laws followed.

[11] Contemporary accounts perceived the Break from Rome as a religious schism, but the English Reformation was like no other heretical denomination. The Church of England did develop into Protestantism under the later Tudors, but at its commencement, it was intricately Catholic in its essence. Only royalty displaced the Papacy as its head and the clergy had to owe its allegiance to the monarch. The King was the representative of God on Earth, effectively Monarch and Pope in his own realm, with complete jurisdiction over his subjects’ spiritual and material welfare: this feature was prejudiced to be in line with the Lutheran concept of princely power and responsibility. However, Henry’s own sense of exalted position wasn’t Lutheran – it corresponded to the praemunir tradition of English Monarchy, which had been for some time in disharmony with the Holy See over “Peter’s Pence” and clerical corruption. [Source – Alison Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (London: Vintage Books, 2007).]

[12] Although Edward reigned for only six years and died at the age of 15, his reign made a lasting contribution to the English Reformation and the structure of the Church of England. The last decade of Henry VIII’s reign had seen a partial stalling of the Reformation, a drifting back to more conservative values. By contrast, Edward’s reign saw radical progress in the Reformation. In those six years, the Church transferred from an essentially Roman Catholic liturgy and structure to one that is usually identified as Protestant. In particular, the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal of 1550, and Cranmer’s Forty-two Articles formed the basis for English Church practices that continue to this day. Edward himself fully approved these changes, and though they were the work of reformers such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley, backed by Edward’s determinedly evangelical Council, the fact of the king’s religion was a catalyst in the acceleration of the Reformation during his reign. [Source – “Edward VI of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 26 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England#Protestant_legacy&gt;.]

[13] In the month following her accession, Mary issued a proclamation that she would not compel any of her subjects to follow her religion, but by the end of September leading Protestant churchmen—including John BradfordJohn RogersJohn HooperHugh Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer—were imprisoned. Mary’s first Parliament, which assembled in early October 1553, declared the marriage of her parents valid and abolished Edward’s religious laws. Church doctrine was restored to the form it had taken in the 1539 Six Articles, which (among other things) re-affirmed clerical celibacy. Married priests were deprived of their benefices. Mary had always rejected the break with Rome instituted by her father and the establishment of Protestantism by her brother’s regents. Philip persuaded Parliament to repeal Henry’s religious laws, thus returning the English church to Roman jurisdiction. Reaching an agreement took many months and Mary and Pope Julius III had to make a major concession: the monastery lands confiscated under Henry were not returned to the church but remained in the hands of their influential new owners. By the end of 1554, the pope had approved the deal, and the Heresy Acts were revived. Under the Heresy Acts, numerous Protestants were executed in the Marian persecutions. Around 800 rich Protestants, including John Foxechose exile instead. The first executions occurred over a period of five days in early February 1555: John Rogers on 4 February, Laurence Saunders on 8 February, and Rowland Taylor and John Hooper on 9 February.  Thomas Cranmer, the imprisoned archbishop of Canterbury, was forced to watch Bishops Ridley and Latimer being burned at the stake. Cranmer recanted, repudiated Protestant theology, and rejoined the Catholic faith. Under the normal process of the law, he should have been absolved as a repentant. Mary, however, refused to reprieve him. On the day of his burning, he dramatically withdrew his recantation. In total, 300 were executed, most by burning. Mary persevered with the policy, which continued until her death and exacerbated anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish feeling among the English people. Her executions of Protestants led to the posthumous sobriquet “Bloody Mary”. [Source – “Mary I of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 23 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England>.]

[14] Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland. [Source J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).]

[15] Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. In 1558 Knox anonymously published The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women – with a follow – up of four additional publications. In it he denounced the rule of women as against the natural order of the world. He used strong language to describe women as foolish, vain, sinful, weak, cruel, and irrational. He conveyed profound disgust at the idea that such ‘‘creatures’’ should be given authority to govern.  To support his argument, Knox draws on the creation story in the Bible. In this story God first creates man, Adam, and gives him authority over all creation. Woman, Eve, is created as a companion for Adam, but is not given the same authority. Protestants support a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so Adam is considered superior to Eve, with God-given authority to rule. He also refers to the Christian concept of Original Sin. When Adam and Eve are first created they are completely without sin. But a serpent convinces Eve that she and Adam should disobey God, who had forbidden them to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  Eve, in turn, convinces Adam to disobey God’s command. This disobedience is the Original Sin. For this sin, Adam and Eve are each punished. Eve’s punishment is the pain of childbirth and the dominance of her husband. In Knox’s view this means that God intends women to be ruled by men and therefore cannot rule a nation. The pamphlet specifically targeted Mary de Guise, Queen Regent of Scotland and Mary Tudor, Queen of England – particularly the latter and called on the English to overthrow her. He stated that Mary’s rule was England’s punishment for having allowed her to take the throne, and he warned that the English must prove their repentance by removing her from power. At a time when the authority of legitimate rulers was unquestioned by the common people, Knox shocked Catholics and Protestants by urging nothing less than revolution. Obedience to legitimate authority was the foundation of the social order in sixteenth-century Europe.  The idea that ordinary people might have the right to overthrow a ruler was unheard of at this time. [Source – Elizabeth Shostak and Sonia G. Benson, Elizabethan World: Primary Sources (London: Thomas Gale, 2007).]

[16] J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).

[17] England was torn by religious strife, and Protestant burnings. The treasury was empty, the principle fortresses of Portsmouth and Berwick were in ruins and the country was bare in munitions; and a huge debt of more than £266, 000 had to be liquidated, part of which was owing to foreign creditors, and charged with a biting interest. England was at war with France and a severe French victory lost the former Calais; its only over – seas possession that gave the Tudor rulers their title – “Sovereign of England, Ireland and France”. [Source – J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).]

[18] D. M. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth: England Under the Later Tudors, 1547 – 1603 (New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 1998).

[19] D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order (London: Fontana/ Collins, 1974).

[20] Mary I’s marriage to Philip II of Spain in 1554 was the most personal act of her reign and it was a fatal. It restored England to the unwanted Orthodoxy and she became subject to Spanish dictates. England moved toward being a satellite to the Imperial power, engaged in costly and futile wars. This struck harshly upon insular prejudice and aroused the ‘Englishry’ of everyone.  In the fear it bred of secular foreign dominance, it emphasized all the more the alien character of papal supremacy; and two oppositions – Politique and Protestant – were wedded. To be mere English and to be Protestant began to seem one and the same thing. [Source – J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series (London:  Jonathan Cape, 1934).]

[21] Wyatt’s Rebellion was a popular uprising in England in 1554, named after Thomas Wyatt, one of its leaders. The rebellion arose out of concern over Queen Mary I‘s determination to marry Philip of Spain. [Source – “Wyatt’s Rebellion”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 1 January 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt%27s_rebellion&gt;.]

[22] Vermigli of Zurich, a Marian exile, originated the ideology of England as the “Elect Nation”. Brooding upon the mysterious ways of the Lord, he came to the conclusion that the Marian persecution was a fiery purgation designed to test the vocation of England to a special space in the Divine Order. Starting from this assumption, and mixing a little secular nationalism with their eschatology, he was able to prove to his own satisfaction that this was part of an historical evolution, beginning with the first establishment of Christianity in Britain. King John’s quarrel with the papacy, the Statutes of Praemunire, the condemnation of Wycliffe, and Henry VIII’s establishment of royal supremacy could all be seen as leading upto this supreme test. Naturally the idiosyncratic view of history of the Church went hand in hand with a devotion to the Prayer Book and to the English Crown. Some Calvinists sought to convert their homeland into some semblance of the ‘most perfect school of Christ’. England was envisioned as the ‘New Jerusalem’ ruled over by Elizabeth – the new Constantine or the Protestant Deborah – taking council for the people of the Lord. [Source – D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order (London: Fontana/ Collins, 1974).]

[23] In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God‘s intervention in the world. The term “Divine Providence” (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God. A distinction is usually made between “general providence”, which refers to God’s continuous upholding the existence and natural order of the universe, and “special providence”, which refers to God’s extraordinary intervention in the life of people. Miracles generally fall in the latter category. This term is an integral part of John Calvin‘s theological framework known as Calvinism, which emphasizes the total depravity of man and the complete sovereignty of God. God’s plan for the world and every soul that he has created is guided by his will, or providence. According to Calvin, the idea that man has free will and is able to make choices independently of what God has already determined is based on our limited understanding of God’s perfection and the idea that God’s purposes can be circumvented. In this mode of thought, providence is related to predestination. This concept remains prominent among many Protestant denominations that identify with Calvinism, the Reformed churches. In Lutheran theology, divine providence refers to God’s preservation of creation, his cooperation with everything that happens, and his guiding of the universe. While God cooperates with both good and evil deeds, with the evil deeds he does so only inasmuch as they are deeds, not with the evil in them. God concurs with an act’s effect, but he does not cooperate in the corruption of an act or the evil of its effect. Lutherans believe everything exists for the sake of the Christian Church, and that God guides everything for its welfare and growth. [Source – “Divine Providence”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 3 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence&gt;.] The justification of the Elizabethan monarchy was sought in God’s will or Providence: obey God out of duty or out of fear. In the opening doxologies of no fewer than nine liturgical prayers from 1590 to 1600, there were direct references to God’s deterministic control in politics. God is the protector of the lives and estates of Christian kings, whose wellbeing is protected by his providence; it is by him that all kings and princes have their charge; England’s survival as a relatively ordered commonwealth is attributed wholly to God’s providence. God’s providence as a sufficient explanation for the empire’s survival was present in Elizabethan acts of parliament. The concept of providence was sufficiently flexible to justify both absolutist conceptions of power and to make threats to princes whose wills exceeded their office. This had considerable implications for Tudor political polemic. For example, the martyrologist John Foxe’s emphasis on God’s providence in the accession of Elizabeth increased proportionately with his displeasure at the queen’s escalating animosity to Puritanism during her reign. By emphasising God’s involvement in Elizabeth’s inheritance of the crown, Foxe was reminding Elizabeth that she was accountable to God for her religious policy. Providence implied covenant. God gave Elizabeth power on the condition that she would restore the English church to its Edwardian purity. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).]

[24] Patrick Collinson in the Elizabethan Essays, claimed that ‘Elizabethan England was a republic which happened also to be a monarchy: or vice versa’. The cohabitation of these traditions was often stormy for there were two governments both trying to govern: queen and council. Collinson’s insight has generated an enormous literature over the last twenty years. The tensions in the Tudor polity inform much of this survey of Tudor political thought and the Puritan and Nonconformist movements added to the republican ideals of civic participation and limited monarchy, though in their own unique way. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).] The understanding of the political elements of the early modern English monarchy is currently improving at three levels definable hierarchically as bottom, middle and top, or, spatially as local community, county community and commonwealth, or community of the realm. Within the formal framework of a monarchy, and subject always to direct royal intervention at any of these levels (for personal monarchy was not always what Kantorowicz called it, ‘an abstract physiological fiction), it is apparent that early modern England consisted of a series of overlapping, superimposed communities which were also semi-autonomous, self-governing political cultures. These may be called, but always in quotes, ‘republics’: village republics; in the counties, gentry republics; and at a transcendent level, the commonwealth of England, which Sir Thomas Smith thought it proper to render in Latin as República Anglorum. In The Governance of England (1470), Sir John Fortescue wrote patriotically of dominium politicum et regale as if England had invented the only constitutional monarchy on earth. There were Elizabethan parliaments which made their mark as political sounding boards: not, to be sure, for a House of Commons intent on realising its manifest destiny of seizing sovereignty from the crown, but in response to a more broadly based and complex contention between representative elements of the ‘political nation’ (even, we may dare to say, of the public) and a politically isolated queen. This contention was mostly about the future of a political nation in which the queen, subject as she was to mortality, would not herself have a share. [Source – Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London:  The Hambledon Press, 1994).]

[25] The English Reformation coincided with the advent of Capitalism in England. The dissolution of monasteries in the 1530s was followed by the sale of monastic and chantry lands that converted the Reformation into a colossal business interest in which everyone , yeoman, merchant, gentleman and nobleman with any free capital invested. Lands had changed hands like shares in modern companies, involving a greater number of speculators and holders. For most people of any importance, when doctors and laymen in divinity had argued themselves hoarse, this remained a ruling consideration; and if Catholics offered truth, why so did Protestants, and along with it a reliable guarantee, free from the scruples of conscience, of a nation – wide investment. London seating the finance, trade, and government at that time was vehemently Protestant. [Source – J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series (London: – Jonathan Cape, 1934).] The manner in which Elizabeth and her ministers perceived ecclesiastical property reinforced the old assumption of the Reformation that the queen’s unique position as head of the church gave her unique rights to its possessions and that it was she and her ministers who could determine the economic destinies of her clerical subjects. While the bishops and higher clergy might possess considerable formal and legal rights in their property, their political dependence upon the will of the sovereign meant that these rights offered little protection against her wishes.  She saw, or professed to see, no difficulty in keeping her prelates under the close control of crown and powerful laity in economic and social affairs, while insisting that they played a strong and apparently independent role in enforcing her religious settlement. Her skills as ruler, and the deep loyalty and dependence of her churchmen, permitted her to continue to have the best of both worlds, though there was no shortage of clerics who suggested that the hierarchy could not long endure under their dual role. In the circumstances of Elizabethan England this necessitated the sacrifice of the weak to the mighty, or more specifically in this case the grant of episcopal lands to those who had a claim upon the patronage of the crown. Royal resources were never sufficient to meet lay demands, and the queen had no hesitation in turning to the bishops for their assistance in maintaining the health of the body politic. Any resistance on their part was, she chose to believe, motivated by self-interest and was an affront to her majesty. The bishops and higher clergy were now normally dependent upon the recommendation of a lay patron for their advancement, and the importance of the patron increased as the reign progressed and the pool of potential clerical candidates grew. The demands for patronage were unceasing, and the behaviour of the bishops provided ample excuse for the exploitation of their property as a means of offering the laity satisfaction. The interests of the laity were best served by dependent clergy of whatever religious persuasion; the existing structure of the ecclesiastical establishment offered ample opportunity both to promote moderate reform through patronage and to gain substantial profits through the dependence which patronage created. Commissions issued to discover concealed lands, that is, lands which should have passed to the crown, usually as a result of the monastic dissolution, were a particularly popular form of profiteering in the later years of the reign. The concentration of patronage in the court, part of a conscious policy to increase the power of the crown, may actually have stimulated demand for the property of the secular church. The willingness of the government to take lands from the bishops and to exempt the crown from controls upon episcopal patronage was a signal that ecclesiastical property was still an acceptable target for lay ambitions: these could often more readily be pursued via the central agency of the court than through contacts with the individual bishops. They could rarely depend upon the support of crown or influential laity for help in retaining their property and were constantly cast into a defensive posture, preoccupied by the need to maintain their estates and to justify their economic position in the eyes of the Elizabethan world. The church had to be wealthy to be powerful and had to be powerful in order to secure unity and order. As the concerns of the hierarchy changed, appeals to Commonwealth’ and Protestant sentiments were heard less often, and legal and scriptural defences of episcopal property gained prominence. [Source – Felicity Hill, Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980).] Most importantly, Elizabeth in 1560, embarked on a revaluation and recoinage of sterling, to restore the value of money in circulation. Though it turned out to be both successful and profitable, it was a risky enterprise and it was decided to melt down a substantial quantity of old and surplus plate from the royal jewel house to underwrite it. One of the principal categories of discarded plate was the elaborate church ornaments of Mary. Some 8,000 ounces of crosses, monstrances, cruets, pyxes, censers, incense – boats and sacring bells were defaced, stripped of their jewels and delivered to the mint. She appreciated the importance of insolvency and increased royal revenue – however, her fiscal policies benefitted the tax – payer, and the chief losers were the courtiers. [Source – David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).]

[26] Latin for the verse from Psalm 118 of the Book of Psalms – “This was the Lord’s doing; and it is marvellous in our eyes.” This phase was muttered by Elizabeth under the Oak tree at Hatfield when she was given the Marian signet ring and declared queen in 1558. [Source – Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen (Episode 1). Mark Fielder. Dr.  David Starkey. BBC Productions, 2000. Documentary.]

[27] J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).

[28] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[29] At birth, Elizabeth was the heiress presumptive to the throne of England. Her older half – sister, Mary, had lost her position as a legitimate heir in the 1533 Act of Succession. However When Elizabeth was two years and eight months old, her mother was executed on 19 May 1536. Elizabeth was declared illegitimate and deprived of her place in the royal succession in the Act of Succession 1536, which declared Henry’s children by Jane Seymour (third wife) to be next in the line of succession. The Pope didn’t recognize Henry VIII’s marriage to her mother, Anne Boleyn; and hence she was a bastard in the eyes of Canon Law. [Source – “Henry VIII of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 5 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England&gt;.] The Succession Statutes of 1547 reinforced both sisters to the line of succession after Edward VI. Mary, on her accession, had reversed the laws of succession by act of Parliament. Elizabeth didn’t do so; instead an act was passed establishing the royal title on the 1547 Statute, and the Queen’s descent from the blood royal of England. This legitimized her right to inherit and rule England, yet not her personal legitimacy: an issue that plagued her till death. [Source – J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).]

[30] The Great Chain of Being is a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals. The great chain of being (Latin: scala naturae, literally “ladder/stair-way of nature”) is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Proclus. Further developed during the Middle Ages, it reached full expression in early modern Neoplatonism. [Source – “Great Chain of being”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 23 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being&gt;.] The Protestants, however cast this synonymous to Divine Will – for which Elizabeth’s accession, despite being she a woman, was analogous to the Great Chain of Being and an expression of the Divine Ordinance over the Elect Nation of England.

[31] Divine Providence.

[32] Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. [Source – Elizabeth Shostak and Sonia G. Benson, Elizabethan World: Primary Sources (London: Thomas Gale, 2007).]

[33] Elizabeth fitted the perfect description of ‘une bonne anglaise’ (“born in England”), giving her popular legitimacy that was much greater than legal or statutory legitimization. English indeed she was; with a characteristic mixture of races and classes. From her father’s side, she drew the royal blood of both York and Lancaster; but it was mingled with the Tudor blood of the Welsh Gentry. On her mother’s side, she derived from the aristocratic Howards, Dukes of Norfolk and the wealthy gentry family of Boleyns. [Source – J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series (London: Jonathan Cape, 1934).]

[34] “Women as the ruling class”. Lawrence Humphrey in his apologies for the Elizabethan rule over – rode the “Customs of Nations” , stating  that “there is a fixed order, both a state of things and an ordering of kingdoms. Nor are states constituted first of all without laws, without leader, rashly and by chance; neither are kings or those who are in charge for them, thus constituted. But as once the kings of Judah, so now ours, are anointed by the command and will of God, whether they are good or bad or men or women. For there is no power but of God”. Indeed, ‘the custom and example of the rule of women is not often found and rarely does a woman enter upon the service of the state. Nevertheless it is not always unnatural and monstrous, if God calls and wishes a woman to hold the power’. By this stance, Humphrey was dismissing a concept ubiquitous throughout political thought. His reason for completely ignoring the prescriptions of the nations was simple, God can override any tradition. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).]

[35] “The Custom of Nations”. The ius gentium or jus gentium (Latin, “Custom of nations”) is a concept of international law within the ancient Roman legal system and Western law traditions based on or influenced by it. The ius gentium is not a body of statute law or a legal code, but rather customary law thought to be held in common by all gentes (“peoples” or “nations”) in “reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct.” In the Middle Ages, the ius gentium derived from canon law in addition to Roman legal theory. In late antiquityIsidore of Seville (c. 560–636), enumerated the principles of theius gentium, focusing on foedera pacis, “peace treaties” – Ius gentium is occupation, construction, fortification, wars, captivity, the right of regaining citizenship after captivity, slavery, treaties, peace, armistice, the inviolability of ambassadors, the prohibition of mixed marriages; and it is the ius gentium because nearly every nation uses it.” [Source – “Jus Gentium”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,.16 March 2014. Web. 27 March 2016. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium&gt;.]

[36] For the most part, Tudor political thought was at odds with absolutism. The preference for a mixed constitution was typical of most Tudor political thought. Both theoretical, and probably, class interests made this the case. Nonetheless, there were moments when zeal for reform moved Protestants to write write absolutist doxologies to kings – “God hath made the king in every realm judge over all, and over him there is no judge. He that judgeth the king judgeth God and he that layeth hand on the king layeth hand on God, and he that resisteth the king resisteth God and damneth God’s law and ordinance. If the subjects sin they must be brought to the king’s judgment. If the king sin he must be reserved unto the judgment, wrath and vengeance of God” (Tyndale). Both the rise of providentialism and the decline of the Great Chain of Being owe their fortunes to shifts and revolutions in thought and politics, European and English. The emphasis on providentialism was a two edged sword, now defending the higher powers, now attacking their pretensions. In this way the rise of providentialism enabled robust movements that could stress the legitimacy of the Royal Supremacy yet also movements that could undermine it. The divergent traditions would continue to widen and intensify into the following century with revolutionary saints seeking to overthrow a system whose claim to authority was just as rooted in the divine will as that of the forces seeking to destroy it. Though there may have been a shift away from the prince as the embodiment of power in practical affairs, the prince was still the most significant field of force in English politics. The dialectic between the authority of parliament, custom, laws, the prince, and God was probably symptomatic of a genuine absence of any concept of sovereignty—in the Bodinian sense of undivided power—in Tudor England. All theorists derived the god-king from the Old Testament, consequently English Protestant divines adopted the idea of the god-king or God’s earthly vicar. This conception of secular power was most conducive to Magisterial Protestantism, which appealed to the secular magistrates to reform and defend religion. The king was not to be held accountable to any earthly institution – “‘…the magistrate is the ordinance of God, appointed by him….[that which] is done by the magistrate, is done by God, whom the scripture often times doth call God, because he hath the execution of God’s office”. It was the Protestant understanding of authority that prevented theologians from allowing any earthly institution to have any sort of authority over the prince. This is illustrated in the words of Hooper who speculated that the legitimacy of government had to be revealed in the Bible, or else no one would obey. The Bible, according to him, revealed a neat political syllogism: ‘…the office of a magistrate is the ordinance of God: and seeing all the ordinances and powers of God are to be obeyed, necessarily it followeth that…the magistrate must be obeyed…’ Hooper also reminded his readers that kings are called ‘gods’ in the Bible, because ‘no man can come to the office of a magistrate but by the permission and sufferance of God. ‘Kings were accountable, but not to their subjects’. Unlike in medieval thought, the king is subordinate to God, but not necessarily to the church. It was the affirmation of this latter sort of subordination, as espoused by later Puritans, Presbyterians, and Separatists, which would force Protestant theorists to take sides between either a prince subordinate to nothing but his own conscience or a prince subordinate to a godly people. Another radical, John Ponet tended to emphasise the divine origin of political government less than other ecclesiastics. Nevertheless he espoused both theological and Aristotelian conceptions of political authority. He affirmed magistrates as ministers of God’s power and also the political commonplace that the necessity for survival compels humans to gather. He, right at the beginning of his Shorte Treatise, affirmed that civil society cannot be based on mere reason, but must find its foundations on a more secure edifice, offering a surprisingly modern and realist definition of the state: an institution with a legitimate monopoly on violence. Ponet began with a theological defense of government, then focused on nature, only to return to God. Ponet considered various types of Constitutions, yet far from advocating a government without any earthly rival, he eventually declared a godly nation to be the government’s superior. When Elizabeth ascended to the throne she described herself as ‘the minister of His heavenly will’. The emphasis was less on princely legitimacy from God than on princely accountability to God. Elizabeth was reported to have said the following year, power from God demands responsibility to God: ‘…princes be set in their seat by God’s appointing and therefore they must first and chiefly tender the glory of him from whom their glory issueth…’ As human Elizabeth was to practise humble piety, yet as queen she was to establish piety. The Royal Supremacy was spoken of by some European and English reformers not as a right but as a duty. From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign there was the admission of accountability to an invisible authority, but she was far from asserting a similar subordination to the church or any other visible institution. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).]

[37] Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically it has sometimes been synonymous with “republic“. The English noun “commonwealth” in the sense meaning “public welfare; general good or advantage” dates from the 15th century. The original phrase “the common-wealth” or “the common weal” (echoed in the modern synonym “public weal”) comes from the old meaning of “wealth”, which is “well-being”, and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica (republic). The term literally meant “common well-being”. [Source – “Commonwealth”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc,. 29 January 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth&gt;.] In Tudor political theory, England stood as the Elect Nation, yet it showed signs of development of a Republic. For instance, out of the Western Rebellion of 1549 there arose some political literature produced by the English church, most notably by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, that advocated the emerging idea that the king was not of absolute necessity in governance. The experience of minority government of Edward VI taught many noblemen that a commonwealth can function quite well with power localized in a council and parliament rather than an absolute monarch. This period proved crucial in the transition from the ideal that the monarch was the state to ‘a polity conscious of existence beyond the life of the king or queen and capable of defining itself ideologically as Protestant…’ Edward’s reign was absolutely formative in the long transition from absolute monarchy to monarchical republic spoken of by contemporary historians. In Peter Martyr Vermigli’s terms, ‘Kingdoms and Commonwealths can thus be called workshops of the divine will’. This is not to say that there was a unified movement among all English political thought to do away with the medieval notion of fixed impersonal Monarchical hierarchy. Ponet, however, writing in Elizabeth’s reign, insisted that a commonwealth may continue to exist without a head. Furthermore, with the instance of the body metaphor, he allowed that a body might remove its own head if it should offend the other members. Ponet later used the body metaphor more explicitly as an exhortation to regicide. This infant idea of the Commonwealth gradually evolved and was materialised by the English Revolution into the Commonwealth of 1649. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).]

[38] In the context of Tudor England, the term stands for the ‘Machiavellian form of government adopted in the aftermath of the Reformation’. In a generic sense, it stands for ‘political cunningness, polity, policy, politique or practice group. Here, it is taken to mean an organised and established form of statecraft, and not ‘sinister policy’, as suggested by the reference to Machiavelli, an unscrupulous and crafty politician of the Renaissance. [Source – Napoleone Orsini , “”Policy”: Or the Language of Elizabethan Machiavellianism”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Vol. 9, 1946:  pp. 122-134.]

 [39] Dr. Dee to Elizabeth I when asked to prophesize about the possibility of the fall of the English Empire from the invasion of the Spanish Armada. [Source – Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Shekhar Kapur. Universal Pictures, 2007. Film.]

[40] The innermost unit of the Government in Tudor England.

[41] Alison Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I (New York: Ballantine Books, 2008).

[42] Sir William Cecil to Elizabeth, informing her of the nature of the inherited Kingdom of England. [Source – Elizabeth. Shekhar Kapur. Gramercy Pictures, 1998. Film.]

[43] D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order (London: Fontana/ Collins, 1974).

[44] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[45] The Court fractions. [Source – D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order (London: Fontana/ Collins, 1974).]

[46] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[47] Archbishop Heath, the Marquess of Winchester, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Derby, Sir Thomas Cheyney and Sir William Petre.

[48] “Welshmen”, David Starkey. [Source – Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen (Episode 1). Mark Fielder. Dr.  David Starkey. BBC Productions, 2000. Documentary.]

[49] Sir William Cecil, Robert Dudley, Francis Bacon,  Knollys, Sacksville, Randolph, Sir Francis Walsingham, Lord William Howard of Effingham, Parry, Rogers, Earl of Bedford and Throckmorton.

[50] W. T. MacCaffrey, “Elizabethan Politics: The First Decade, 1558-1568”, Past & Present No. 24, April 1963: pp. 25-42.

 [51] D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order (London: Fontana/ Collins, 1974).

[52]  J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959). These zealous Protestants commanded wealth, power and influence in the royal court and the countryside. Yet, these well placed laymen carried their religion with a difference; to them it was often less a personal faith than a political ideology. These men, while receiving the Protestant doctrines without demur, focussed rather on their secular, than on their spiritual implications. For them, independence from foreign ecclesiastical authority, the expulsion of the clergy from the political stage and the shaping of ecclesiastical structure to that of the State were at least as important, if not more so, than the renewed spiritual vigour and rigorous enforcement of the godly discipline which the new Faith offered. They conceived the advancement of religion in terms of an international struggle and hence, from them originated the push of religious zeal to shape English politics. [Source – W. T. MacCaffrey, “Elizabethan Politics: The First Decade, 1558-1568”, Past & Present No. 24, April 1963: pp. 25-42.]

[53] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[54] Ibid.

[55] Elizabeth to a Lord in the opening Parliament of 1559. [Source – Elizabeth. Shekhar Kapur. Gramercy Pictures, 1998. Film.]

[56] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[57] Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).

[58] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[59] Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994). Images, relics, pilgrimages, candles (mostly) and the ‘telling of beads’ had all gone. But major Catholic practices survived: the congregation was to kneel for prayers to God and to bow and doff their caps at the name of Jesus; alters or communion tables were ordinarily to stand ‘alterwise’ at the east end of churches; the traditional special wafers were used for communion, rather than the ordinary bread specified in 1552; the clergy were to wear copes when they celebrated communion and the surplice at other times; endowments for choirs and music were to be retained; and though, most possessions were to be abolished, the beating the bounds of the parish was to continue, with an injunction to respect property rights. Finally the prayer – offensive to even the mildest Catholic – to be delivered ‘from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enemies’ was omitted from the Litany as well. [Source – David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).]

[60] It would be interesting to mention the Coronation procession of Elizabeth here. The pageantry were related to her genealogy, the promise of her New Government (which was shown to uphold True Religion, True Wisdom, Love of Subjects and Justice), the Beatitudes (to refer to Elizabeth’s and her fellow Protestant’s suffering under Mary), the Protestant Commonwealth and the English Bible and Deborah clothed in parliamentary robes, enthroned under a date palm, and ruling over the three estates – the nobility, the Clergy and the Common man. [Source – David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).] It carried a special political messageElizabeth, in all her new and gorgeous garment majesty, was to be the protectress of the rising generation of the Protestant mercantile class; she would support learning, she would uphold virtue and justice. The highly popular text is not propaganda. It was a manifesto that one very powerful, and very new, section of society was presenting to the Queen and hoping she would follow. [Source – A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).]

[61] Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Erasmus’s Paraphrases, Jewel’s Apology, and other texts which were circulated to expound the Bible and Book of Common Prayer.

[62] Fines, imprisonment, death sentences.

[63] Ronald Hutton, A Brief History of Britain, 1485 – 1660 (London: Constables & Robinson Ltd., 2010).

[64] Daniel Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007).

[65] The Crown was deemed fit to exercise jurisdictional authority over the clergy (potestas jurisdictionis), as opposed to spiritual authority (potestas ordinis) – to the extent of formulating ordinances touching spiritual matters.

[66] Daniel Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007).

[67] Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).

[68] J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series (London:  Jonathan Cape, 1934).

[69] Daniel Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007).

[70] Lutheran Church.

[71] The compromise of 1559, like all compromises, became in the minds of many a terminus a quo, rather than a terminus ad quem: time would test its validity, and might even disrupt it or attempt to disrupt it. For the time being, it served its purpose of uniting the people and allowed the via media a chance of success. [Source – J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).]

[72] J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series (London:  Jonathan Cape, 1934).

[73] The Book of Common Prayer as issued in 1559. [Source – Elizabeth Shostak and Sonia G. Benson, Elizabethan World: Primary Sources (London: Thomas Gale, 2007).]

[74] Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).

[75] The Book of Common Prayer as issued in 1559. [Source – Elizabeth Shostak and Sonia G. Benson, Elizabethan World: Primary Sources (London: Thomas Gale, 2007).]

[76] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[77] Ibid.

[78] Advent, Christmas, Candlemas, Lent, Easter, Pentecost.

[79] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[80] Ibid.

[81] Ibid.

[82] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Ibid.

[86] Elizabeth to Dr Nowell, Dean of St. Paul’s in a sermon in 1565 when the latter attacked the ‘idolatry’ (crucifixes in chapels) prevalent in England. [Source – Alison Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I (New York: Ballantine Books, 2008).]

[87] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[88] Felicity Hill, Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

[89] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[90] Ibid.

[91] Felicity Hill, Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

[92] The Catholic Plots that brewed the (60) Catholic Persecutions and Anti – Catholic Legislation (Anti – Jesuit Laws of the 1580s)  in the latter half of Elizabeth’s reign.

[93] Admonition Controversy of 1559, the Presbyterian Movement, and ‘Separatist Trends’ that appeared in the late 16th – early 17th century England.

[94] J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603 (London:  Clarendon Press, 1959).

[95] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[96] Dr. Dee to Elizabeth in a prophesy – session. [Source – Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Shekhar Kapur. Universal Pictures, 2007. Film.]

[97] The Marian experiences.

[98] A. N. Wilson, The Elizabethans (Great Britain: Hutchinson, 2011).

[99] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[100] ‘Adiaphora’ were religious beliefs and practices which were neither commanded nor condemned in the scriptures and could therefore be considered relatively trivial or ‘matters indifferent’. [Source – Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).]

[101] Bastard – feudal/ seigneurial Catholicism that survived in the rural mansions of England. Religion was integral to the household, mass was celebrated in secret with a presiding ‘house’ priest, and allegiance was still maintained with the ‘Old’ religion. However this necessarily didn’t mean recusancy. [Source – John Bossy Source, “The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism”, Past & Present No. 21, April 1962:  pp. 39-59.]

[102] For both Collinson and Lake, Puritans were Protestants, both lay and clerical, whose religious enthusiasm and zeal marked them off from their more lukewarm contemporaries. They were a self-conscious group who were totally committed to purging the Established Church of its popish ‘superstitions’ and bringing a biblical morality to English society. They called themselves the ‘godly’, and this title is sometimes used by historians interchangeably with Puritan. As with every group, the Puritans ranged from the moderate to the radical: the radical element was particularly obstreperous in its refusal to compromise its principles by conforming to practices within the Church that it considered ungodly, and often drifted into Presbyterianism; the moderates, on the other hand, did not refuse to conform when pressed hard by the ecclesiastical authorities, but did so reluctantly and under protest for fear that their refusal to conform would result in their loss of a living or preaching licence and thus jeopardize the preaching ministry. The term ‘Puritan’ was first coined during the so-called Vestiarian Controversy of the mid-1560s to describe the zealots who resisted conforming to the conservative rubrics laid down in the 1559 Prayer Book; and throughout the Elizabethan period those ministers who refused to conform to all the rituals and rubrics laid down in the Prayer Book were called Puritans or precisionists by their enemies. [Source – Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).]

[103] A duality between outward show of piety and inner belief; A duality between obligation to the Sovereign (i.e., the Queen and her Government) and the Spiritual Head (i.e., the Pope).

[104] David Starkey, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London: Vintage Books, 2001).

[105] According to Puritan complaint literature, the Elizabethan Church was in very poor shape indeed: the laity lacked a basic understanding of Protestant doctrines and was ungodly in its behaviour; the clergy was poorly educated and unable to preach; and institutions like the church courts were unreformed and corrupt. While it is true that the Puritans held impossibly high standards of what they considered to be a ‘true’ and ‘godly’ Church, they did have some good reasons to be gloomy in their assessment of the state of religion, particularly during the first half of Elizabeth’s reign. During the 1560s there was much to be done in the work of conversion, yet there existed only a tiny Protestant preaching ministry to carry out the task. Partly as a result of a mortality crisis in the late 1550s, there was a dire shortage of clergy in the early Elizabethan Church, and vacant livings had to be hurriedly filled with poorly qualified men, who lacked the knowledge and skills necessary to proselytize effectively. Furthermore, as already seen, many parishes continued to be served by Marian priests who did their utmost to frustrate the spread of Protestant beliefs and worship as laid down in the 1559 Prayer Book. At the same time the laity was resistant to change. Church-wardens were slow to comply with the law and rid the churches of Catholic plate, vestments, altars and images, not just in the more conservative north but also in southern parishes such as Great St Mary’s Cambridge and St Edmund’s Salisbury, where such items were not sold off until 1568. Even at the end of the reign the work of Reformation was incomplete. Ordinary men and women were ignorant about the finer points of Protestant doctrine, and many continued to believe that good deeds played some role in their own salvation. Thomas Cartwright was probably correct in his observation that ‘heaps’ of people had cast away the old religion without discovering the new.  At the same time, the administration of the Church was barely reformed in Elizabeth’s reign, and many Protestants (and not just Puritans) were dismayed that opportunities had not been taken to overhaul the church courts and bishoprics, as well as to end pluralism and absenteeism in the parishes.[Source – Susan Doran, Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603 (London: Routledge, 1994).]

[106] ‘Body Politic’, ‘Great Chain of Being’, ‘Providence’, ‘Divine Kingship’ etc,.

[107] The infusion of providentialism into the sixteenth-century mind gave oppositionalism a new vigor. Yet, it was not just new theology, it was a new model of church and state that shook the certainty that characterized conceptions of society up until the sixteenth-century.  It was the product of the Reformation which challenged the supremacy of the state over the conscience of individuals and religious communities. Yet the absolutist claims of the prince were couched in a language of providentialism and supported by an Established church whose autonomy and character depended on the pleasure of the magistrate. England is the supreme example, for witness how religion was simply changed by the whim of monarchs and elites. How shocking it must have been to a people who could barely conceive alternative ways of thinking and living seeing their beloved icons smashed, then restored, then smashed again. The experience of seeing religion treated so summarily must surely have become part of national memory for many countries, contributing to the disenchantment of religion itself, no longer necessary in its particulars or even in its essentials, but determined by the caprice of rulers. [Source – Stephen A. Chavura, Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603 (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011).]


Text Reference

  1. Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series. London: – Jonathan Cape, 1934. Print.
  2. Black, J. B. The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558 – 1603. London: – Clarendon Press, 1959. Print.
  3. Hurstfield, Joel. Elizabeth I and the Unity of England. London: – English Universities Press Ltd., 1960. Print.
  4. Williamson, James A. Tudor Age. London: – Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1964. Print.
  5. Russell, Conrad. The Crisis of Parliaments: English History, 1509 – 1660. Oxford: – Oxford University Press, 1971. Print.
  6. Loades, D. M. Politics and the Nation, 1450 – 1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order. London: – Fontana/ Collins, 1974. Print.
  7. Hill, Felicity. Of Prelates and Princes: A Study of the Economic and Social Position of the Tudor Episcopate. New York: – Cambridge University Press, 1980. Print.
  8. Collinson, Patrick. Elizabethan Essays. London: – The Hambledon Press, 1994. Print.
  9. Doran, Susan. Elizabeth I & Religion, 1558 – 1603. London: – Routledge, 1994. Print.
  10. Palliser, D. M. The Age of Elizabeth: England under the Later Tudors, 1547 – 1603. New York: – Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 1998. Reprint.
  11. Starkey, David. Elizabeth: Apprenticeship. London: – Vintage Books, 2001. Reprint.
  12. McLaren, A. N. Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558 – 1585. U.K: – Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
  13. Doran, Susan and Richardson, Glenn, eds. Tudor England and its Neighbours. New York: – Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Print.
  14. Eppley, Daniel. Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England. England: – Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007.
  15. Benson, Sonia G. Elizabethan World: Almanac. London: – Thomas Gale, 2007. Print.
  16. Shostak, Elizabeth and Benson, Sonia G. Elizabethan World: Primary Sources. London: – Thomas Gale, 2007. Print.
  17. Weir, Alison. The Life of Elizabeth I. New York: – Ballantine Books, 2008.
  18. Hutton, Ronald. A Brief History of Britain, 1485 – 1660. London: – Constables & Robinson Ltd., 2010. Print.
  19. Chavura, Stephen A. Tudor Protestant Political Thought, 1547 – 1603. The Netherlands: – Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011. Print.
  20. Wilson, A. N. The Elizabethans. Great Britain: – Hutchinson, 2011.

Article Reference

  1. “Anglicanism”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 15 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglicanism&action=history>.
  2. “Elizabethan Era”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 20 February 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_era>.
  3. “Edward VI of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 26 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England#Protestant_legacy&gt;.
  4. “Mary I of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 23 March 2016. Web. 26 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England>.
  5. “Wyatt’s Rebellion”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 1 January 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt%27s_rebellion&gt;.
  6. “Divine Providence”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 3 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence&gt;.
  7. “Henry VIII of England”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 5 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England&gt;.
  8. “Great Chain of being”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 23 March 2016. Web. 27 March 2016.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being&gt;.
  9. “Jus Gentium”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc.,16 March 2014. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium&gt;.
  10. “Commonwealth”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation Inc., 29 January 2016. Web. 27 March 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth&gt;.
  11. Orsini, Napoleone. “”Policy”: Or the Language of Elizabethan Machiavellianism”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 9 (1946): 122-134. Print.
  12. MacCaffrey, W.T. “Elizabethan Politics: The First Decade, 1558-1568”, Past & Present, No. 24 (April 1963): pp. 25-42.
  13. Source, John Bossy. “The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism”, Past & Present, No. 21 (April 1962): 39-59. Print.

Video reference

  1. Elizabeth. Shekhar Kapur. Gramercy Pictures, 1998. Film.
  2. Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen (Episode 1). Mark Fielder. Dr. David Starkey. BBC Productions, 2000. Documentary.
  3. Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Shekhar Kapur. Universal Pictures, 2007. Film.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s