tomproctor03-blog

[tomproctor03-blog]

Weekly History essay writing:  Week 2

Week 2

How significant was religion in succession disputed from 1534 to 1558

The Allegory of the Tudor succession, clearly epitomises how important religion was to the succession. Even though the painting is not in real-time, it represents what time was like. On the right you have the Protestants of Edward VI and Elizabeth I and this shows an innocuous and amicable setting, however on the left it shows the Catholics, with Mary I and Philip II, in which it shows a dangerous setting, in which this is emphasised by the use of Mars, the God of War. This picture shows how important religion was, to the extent that it was able to separate a family, in which one religion was prioritised, and this is also shown with Henry being closer to the Protestants, and simply the Catholics have been ostracized away, showing how succession did factor in the religion of that person. Religion was also significant and that was because of the reformation. This is because after the reformation, this did set-up England to be a one-religion country, in which before the reformation it was a very politique society, showing how the reformation acted as a catalyst what would change the line further down (with Edward’s decision between Mary and Elizabeth). The reformation is key because it sets off a reaction that resulted in the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace, but the most important idea would be the 1540 excommunication of Henry VIII by Pope Paul III. This affected the succession because it now meant Henry had nothing to lose, in which he knew that Mary’s theology would not work in this monarchy. However, it is important to know, and this is emphasised by Historian JJ Scarisbrick in his book “Henry VIII”, that even though the reformation was occurring, Henry VIII was still a Catholic, and that was shown throughout. For example, when Thomas Cromwell brought in the 10 articles (replacing transubstantiation to consubstantiation for example), Henry thought that he was going too fast and introduced the 6 articles, bringing back Catholic ideas, like the Veneration of Mary, images, celibacy of Saints and transubstantiation. Also Henry was seriously pious, utilising the idea of the Divine Right of Kings (that God chose him to be the King) throughout his reign. But also when Henry read in the Bible about Leviticus 18:16 (what said his marriage to Catherine was besmirching his brother) it changed him mentally. Historian G.R. Elton writes in “England under the Tudors” that “It was one of the main factors that led Henry to wanting to annul his marriage.” The fact of the matter is that with these pieces of evidence it showed that Henry was serious about religion, so when it came to successors, especially before 1537 when Edward was not alive, religion would have been the top of the key. Furthermore, to show how important religion was, is the marriage to Anne of Cleves. The main reason why Henry chose to marry Anne of Cleves was to join with the only major Protestant force at this time (through the hard work of Luther and his reforms), showing how a marriage (as sacred as it was) was decided by religion (and the work of Hans Holbein the Younger), simply showing how much succession depended on religion. Also another reason why religion was so important was because of the factions, especially throughout Edward VI. This is because with Edward coming to the end of his life he needed to pick an heir, and at the start he said in his “device for a succession” that one of the grey’s sons (Jane, Elizabeth or Mary) would become King, but at the end he picked Jane, and this clearly showed the religious importance. Also on the topic of Royal wills, in Henry’s will it was almost indoctrinated by Protestants, showing because Stephen Gardiner and Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, two main Catholics, were both omitted from the will and placed in the Tower, showing how important religion was at this time, and how it reciprocated onto succession. Out all of the female women, he picked the most, as A.F. Pollard described it, “ardent and dutiful Protestant”, and that is due to the fact that the main person who was running the court was of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. He was powerful, showing this with his leadership with defeating Robert Kett in Norfolk, in which Elton said “Wawrick (his title at the time) crushed Kett”, but also he showed his power through crushing Scotland at Pinkie Cleugh, and through successfully neutralizing the power of the Duke of Somerset in 1550, what lead to his execution in 1552. Basically, he was the Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, equivalent of Protestant England, in which he replicated this with his religion. Historian G.R.Elton describes Dudley as a “man who switched religion too much depending on the monarch at that time”, and throughout the reign of Edward, it was Protestant. He showed this power to marry his son, Sir Guildford Dudley to Lady Jane Grey, and ultimately a surge in religion, created by Dudley, acted as a spotlight that attracted Edward to make her successor to the throne, showing how significant religion was. Another example would be Mary’s marriage to Philip. Now even though the Venetian Ambassador Michieli said that Mary was “extraordinarily in love” with Philip, it was all down to religion. To show this, when Wyatt’s rebellion was put down, Mary even placed her step-sister Elizabeth Tudor in the Tower of London for 2 months and then placed her under house arrest at Woodstock palace. But also on Philip’s side his ambassador said that: “the marriage was concluded for no fleshly consideration, but in order to remedy the disorders of this kingdom and to preserve the Low Countries." That is also linked to religion because of threat that Calvinism had in the low countries with William the Silent and others, and this potential threat was displayed with the Dutch Revolt, in which many Historians agree saying that Philip wanted a Catholic baby so that he could also carry on putting down Protestant surges. 

On the other hand, there are also other things that were significant towards the succession. The first idea would be gender. There had not been a Queen, since Mary,  that was undisputed for 400 years, and that was Queen Matilda. Personally, I think that because of the problems that Matilda created along with her relative of Stephen, what resulted in a  civil war, now known as the anarchy, this created this fixated impression that women were unable to rule the throne.Chroniclers described the period as one in which "Christ and his saints were asleep" and Victorian historians called the conflict "the Anarchy" because of the chaos. Going back to the Allegory of the Tudor succession, it is also important to look at Edward compared to the other two children of Henry VIII. Edward is small, Mary and Elizabeth are not, Edward looks inexperienced, with a lack of education compared to the much older Mary and Elizabeth. Edward is the closest to Henry VIII, holding the globus cruciger, symbolising the importance of gender. Also in the official Tudor family photo by an unknown artists, Henry’s arm is around Edward, and Mary is almost ostracized away from him, and that was the same in real-life. Gender was a very interesting topic, in the patriarchal society full of misogynistic men. A perfect example would be John Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpets against the monstrous regiment of women.”  Knox said  "God, by the order of his creation, has [deprived] woman of authority and dominion" and from history that "man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be.” Gender was also important for Henry VIII in which it has been argued that it is the main reason why he wanted an annulment, in which he broke from the Catholic church in 1532 just so he could gain a male. A monarch who wrote: “The defence of the seven sacramets” against Luther’s 95 theses in 1520, what led to Pope Leo X giving him the title “Defender of the Faith”, and  the same monarch who burnt William Tynedale at the stake for the translation of the Bible into English, was the same person who broke from Rome, just to get a male heir, showing the importance. Another factor is legitimacy, and that was shown with firstly when Edward (with Northumberland) was writing “devise for a succession” he made it clear that the heir had to be legitimate, and that showed the simple importance of legitimacy, what restricted Mary for a smooth transition over to be the first Queen to be coronated. The importance of legitimacy is shown through the 3 act of successions (1533. 1536 and 1544). Also in the time of Henry VIII, legitimacy was important for the throne and that was because Henry (in 1534) had a son by the name of Henry FitzRoy, but it was illegitimate with a lady in his courts named Elizabeth Blount. To show the gravity of this topic, Henry placed in his diary: “this legitimacy problem will be the bane of my life.” Also another factor that could factor Tudor succession, could be race. As the reformation continued throughout time, this leads to certain reformers becoming the most popular, in which the main one would be Martin Luther. Luther wrote about Jews very provocatively, using very pejorative language against them. At first, he thought that Jews were just ostracized away from Christianity, and that they needed to be invited into Christianity, in which he wrote: “ That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew”, however after Jews ignored him, this is when he wrote the crude work of “The Jews and their lies”, in which he inspires people to burn down synagogues, killing jews, stop Rabbits from giving sermons and also to burn the Torah. This work was very influential to others at the time, for example a Jewish Journalist named Josel of Rosheim asked for the Strasbourg government to ban the book, however, they thought it was great so they did not. However they were forced to ban it when a Priest told people to kill Jews during a sermon. However, in Tudor England (especially during the reign of Edward VI) there were a lot of Jews, but also when Catharine of Aragon came to England a lot of black people came to England, and subsequently the works of a Protestant had an effect on a Protestant country, in which a lot of Jews were sent out of the country, and that did affect the throne, and that is argued by Historian John Guy, not in his books, but in general, lecturing, that Jews were linked to the throne, especially a lot of males that were linked to the Brandon family, but because of the “sin” that having a Jew in your family was, a lot of them were exiled or just wiped away from their history, taking them out of the succession conversation, and this did subsequently make it harder for Edward VI, because there was no male heir, ready for when he dies. It is hard to understand how effective Luther’s “The Jews and their lies” was, and just to show the effect it had, many Historians, including Diarmaid MacCulloch and Daniel Goldhagen have argued that Luther was actually the influencer for the Nazi Party, in which for example, Heinrich Himmler frequently quoted Luther, and the official Nazi Newspaper, Die Sturmer, would also quote Luther from that book. Reinhold Lewin writes that anybody who "wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther.Furthermore, the editor for Die Sturmer, Julius Streicher was given a fuirst edition of the book for his birthday, in whicht he same copy was placed in a glass cabinet during the Nuremberg rallies. On the topic of birthdays, many Historians argue that the reason why Kristallnacht was started on the 11th November was because it was the birthday of Martin Luther, showcasing the influence of Luther, and how much that would have been magnified and projected in the 16th century, and in England (a historically racist country who also historically hated Jews, but still had them).

Overall I think religion was the most important factor and that is because of the fact that it stayed relevant throughout the reign of Henry VIII to Elizabeth I. Historian G.R. Elton writes in his “Reformation Europe”, that: “Europe in the early to mid 16th century remains a magnet to student and reader alike”, and “it remains the most gripping Tudor time topic to date”, showing how indecipherable it would be to think how important and salient it was at that time, and this was all opened up and marshalled by Luther’s opposition to the Papal Authority, and as this surged into Switzerland with Zwingli, Strasbourg with Bucer, Geneva with Calvin, Scotland with Knox and many more, England was also grasped by it. When talking about the Duke of Somerset in his book, Historian G.R. Elton described England as the “Mecca for reformers”, and a lot of people came in order to lead a much more tamer country, for example Peter Martyr from Italy and Bucer from Strasbourg. The antithesis of this was gender, because i think that Gender was only paramount until the start of the Mary’s reign. At the start people thought that Mary would be pushed to the side when she was to marry an English man (for example like Reginald Pole or Edward Courtney), but when she married Philip II nothing changed, because of the acts passed by Parliament, and to show this lack of change, on the coins at the time, Mary was in front of Philip II, as if he was a concierge to her, and this idea of Women being on the throne was still seen as weird, in which they were called, “she-wolves”. However, the eventual reign of Mary for 5  years and then Elizabeth for 45 years, definitely nullified and assuaged the problem of Gender. Also on the topic of race, many Historians disagree on the influence of Luther.  Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there was no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology and Uwe Siemon-Netto also agreed, arguing that it was because the Nazis were already antisemites that they revived Luther's work. Without the religious schisms and the now the radical view of religion, with the rising of the Anabaptist, things like Gender and race would not have been a problem. A prime example, is that many scholars like Erasmus and Johannes Oecolampadius argued that Genesis 2:22 showed that women were inferior to men, due to the fact that Adam came before Eve and that she was created from him, and with that idea, it plagued this idea of women not being able to rule, and even though the rule of Matilda has been attributed to the patriarchal, the genesis 2:22 idea has always been theorised, but because it was in the time of the reformation this acted as a catalyst, meaning now more people understood the bible (through the introduction of catechisms and vernacular language and the Vulgate), and when society says something, the monarchy usually will conform to it or face it, showing the influence religion had on the succession line.

[tomproctor03-blog]

Weekly History writing essay: Week 1

To what extent did financial security change over the period of 1509-88?

Financial security changed drastically over this period. Argued firstly by Historian G.R. Elton, he says about how when Henry VIII came to the throne, he was the first “Renaissance King”, and what he meant by that was that Henry was not interested in the administrative side of Kingshi rather he wanted to have hunting seasons, host grand parties, and invade countries, in which fort his he needed money. He was lucky in the sense that his father, Henry VII, had a plethora of effective tax reforms and ideas (for example commissiong the Archbishop of Canterbury to create Morton’s fork, what was a catch-22 tax scheme targeted towards the Nobles), but also you had the excellent financial advisers of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, and Lord Dynham, and the two tax collectors of Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley in which they created tax laws and “dug-up” old and dubious financial laws that everyone had forgotten about, leading to Henry, at the point he died in 1509, having over $2,000,000 in his coffers, leaving all to his heir, Henry VIII. So in 1509, the financial security was the greatest iit could be. However, because Henry wanted to have a lavish lifestyle, this drastically went down. However the real reason why the financial security fell down to England being in debt, was because Henry wanted to be implemented and ingrained into History, as the King who took over lands and started an Empire. So in 1513, Henry used the $2,000,000 + that his father has kept in, and overall it was mediocre. Henry had created the Anti-French league, with the Holy roman Empire, in which in this attack, Maximilian I helped out Henry (Henry had 30,000 soldiers), and France could not stand a chance, in which they defeated France at the Battle of Spurs, and Henry gained the prestigious lands of Therouanne and Tournai, however because he spent that much money on the war, that he had no extra money to keep those lands and preserve them for Englishterriotiry, so Henry lost the lands almost instantly. However, the financial situation was exacerbated, and that was because during the Battle of the Spurs (because of the Auld alliance between France and Scotland), Scotland invaded England, and even though the English defeated the Scottish at the Battle of Flodden Field, in which King James IV of Scotland killed, England again was spending too much money. When all of these wars finished, England was in ultimate financial scarcity; something needed to change. So it did. With the rise of Wolsey, from 1515 to 1520, the financial security did rise a lot, and that was because of the intellectuality of Wolsey. Now, even though Wolsey came from a poor background in Ipswich, he worked his way up the ecclesiatical church, and attended the University of Cambridge at the age of 15, and one idiosyncratic trait of his, was that he was very good with finances, thus why Henry VII made him a royal chaplain during his reign. Wolsey implemented a lot of taxes that were new, for example the subsidy (what generates around $225,000 for Henry), and the fifteenths and tenths (what generated around $118,000 for Henry). However, Wolsey also used some other older tax laws, for example clerical taxation on the church, the Crown lands on the Nobles and also the forced loans, what generated around $250,000 for Henry, thus increasing the financial security, showing the change. Also, Wolsey implemented taxation laws in this period, in which the main one would be the Act of Resumptions, what would discard obsolescent roya grants, saving Henry asround $10,000 a year. Also, Wolsey’s domestic policy (that was a success), of launching an investigation into over 254 enclosures, leading to the crown finding a lot of corrupt families, resulting in more tax being paid, also increasing the financial security. From 1520 to 1536 the financial security dropped very low. This was because, Henry went back to his ways of wanting to invade countries, but also in one specific example, he wanted to boast against another country. In 1520, England was isolated from Europe, and decided that France would be the country that they would make good terms with, so this led to the Field of the Cloth of Gold, however it did not produce a treaty, rather it was just a boasting session, resulting in greater animosity between the two countries. The crown spent around ⅓ of their yearly budget on this failure of a peace agreement. Also, in this period the laity began to notice that the crown were just manipulating them to give them more taxes, and that it as not for the: “good of the country”. They especially got annoyed when Cardinal Wolsey seen as a: “base” person, spent over $1,000,000 on his own house of Hampton Court Palace , what was grander than the King’s palace. However, a specific example of the laity, and also the church, becoming more irate with the taxes that the crown tried to push down their throats would be the amicable grant. With some background information, when Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, defeated Francis I of France, Francis was taken hostage, making France very vulnerable, so Henry wanted to invade the country. However, he had o money to invade them with (showing how low the financial security was at the time), so Henry brought to Wolsey something called the amicable grant, in which the laity would be taxed ⅓ of their yearly wages, and the church ⅙; their target was $800,000. However they managed to raise $0, showing you how the perpetuated use of taxes, had led to the country, now being dubious of them, leading to a decrease in the financial security. However, in 1536, all of this changed, and that was because of the ideas of Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell, not naturally gifted with finances, learnt under the Florencians of Francesco Frescobaldi and also other merchants in Bruges and Antwerp. When he came back to England in around 1516, he also showed that he was financially coherent, due to the fact that he sorted out myriads of church’s bonds and contracts about money with Rome, in which Cromwell actually went to Rome and met with Pope Leo X. Also, he shows his tenacity when it came to finances, when Cardinal Wolsey wanted to build the twin Cardinal Colleges in Oxford, but he could not afford it, however he was able to, when Cromwell told him to dissolute 24 monasteries. Ironically, this is how Cromwell now made Henry money in 1536, in which during the Reformation Parliament, they passed the Valor Ecclesiasticus, what was the start of the dissolution of the monasteries. Now by 1539, all the monasteries in the country were gone, and Cromwell had gained these monastic lands and sold them to some poorer people, what would create the new middle-class, and create more money because Cromwell would now tax these people, leading to the financial security changing a lot. However antithetical to this idea, but still going on with the argument, when Cromwell died in 1540, this led to the financial security going down. Firstly, there was now no one who would help out Henry when it came to keeping their financial security stable. This was because at this point (after the death of Cromwell), there was the rise of the privy council feuds, what was between the Evangelics and the conservatives, and at its peak, you had Thomas Cranmer being accused of treason but also Stephen Gardiner’s relative (Germaine Gardiner) being executed for not following the oath of Supremacy, but also Henry Howard, Earl of Hertford, being executed, who was the son of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. This led to the financial security being increased, and that was because Henry was not held back by someone, leading to Henry trying to invade France again, with the siege of Boulogne and also the Rough Wooing against Scotland, and because of these were very unsuccessful this led to financial security going down. During the reign of Edward VI, the financial security was very high, and it was stable throughout his whole reign. This was because, even though Edward’s advisers (for example, Edward Seymour and John Dudley), were egoists who mainly cared for themselves, they did do a lot, financially, for the country. For example, Edward Seymour led the dissolution of the monasteries, in which this generated thousands of pounds, and they then subsequently he sold them to the middle-class, further taxing them after, gaining more money. Also, under the protectoship of John Dudly, Duke of Northumberland, he managed to end all wars with France and Scotland, but also he introduced a lot of successful financial reforms, and it was even that successful that William Cecil, under the reign of Elizabeth I used reforms that were influenced by Dudley’s reforms. However, the real reason why their financial security did not go down dramatically, would be because Edward did not go to war as frequently as Henry, Edward was only young and there were effective tax laws, showing you the difference between the financial secretary of the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI. However, go to the reign of Elizabeth I and this led to the financial security changing again. Firstly, at the start of her reign, Financial security as grate, and that was because of the cautiousness of Cecil and Elizabeth, but also because of the financial reforms of Cecil, but also because England did not go to war. That is because England was much more focused on: the Elizabethan religious settlement, the growth of Parliament, the marriage deal and also trying to make the country a politique and religiously stable country. However, go to the end of Elizabeth’s reign and the financial security was a different story. Many Historians, including J.J Scarisbrick, talk about after 1588, Elizabeth’ second reign started, in which she started to become too lethargic as a leader, and just allow the society to cope by itself. She spent too much money on the English armada (this was a retaliation to the Spanish Armada that occurred in 1588), in which she sent around 23,000 men and 450 ships, and around 12,000 died, resulting in mass money was spent. Also at the end of her reign, she went through with the debasement of the coin, but there were no financial reforms, leading to the subsidy decreasing from 140,000 to 80,000. Also, when she died, it was found that she had personal debts of over $350,000

The financial situation over the course of this period changed massively, and there is no debating over that, however the actual debate is when there was the biggest change. The biggest change that occurred over this period would be the start of the reign of Henry VIII. That is because, when Henry VIII became King in 1509, many Historians in that period said that his future looked: “bright and colorful, full of promises and pulchritudinous events and occurrences”. However within 4 years, the country was in mass debt. So, to go from a coherently economic country,that had been carefully and tenaciously carved out by Henry VII, Edmund Dudley, Richard Empson , Lord Dynham, Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, John Morton, Archbishop of Canter Tb of others, to a country that was seriously in debt and in urge of an adviser to guide the economy in the right direction, just shows how drastic the changes were, showing the ultimate change in financial security in this period.