17 May 1575 A.D. Elizabeth's 1st Canterbury, Matthew Parker Dies—85th of 105 Archbishops of Canterbury

17 May 1575 A.D.  Elizabeth’s Matthew Parker Dies—85^th of 105 Archbishops of Canterbury

Editors.  “Matthew Parker.”  Encyclopedia Britannica.  N.d. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/444098/Matthew-Parker.  Accessed 16 Mary 2014.

Matthew Parker,  (born Aug. 6, 1504, Norwich, Norfolk, Eng.—died May 17, 1575, Lambeth, London), Anglican archbishop of Canterbury (1559–75) who presided over the Elizabethan religious settlement in which the Church of England maintained a distinct identity apart from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

Parker studied at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and was ordained a priest in 1527, though he had already become sympathetic to Lutheranism. From 1535 to 1547 he was dean of a college of priests in Suffolk and from 1544 to 1553 master of Corpus Christi College, occasionally holding other positions concurrently, such as chaplain to Henry VIII (1538) and vice chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1545, 1549). Forced to resign and retire to private life under the Roman Catholic Mary I, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury 13 months after Elizabeth I’s accession.

As archbishop, Parker supervised the revision of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer’s 42 doctrinal articles of 1553: the Thirty-Nine Articles (on which the Church of England doctrinally rests) were printed in 1563 and authorized in 1571. He also organized a new translation of the Bible, himself translating Genesis, Matthew, and some Pauline letters; this Bishops’ Bible (1568) was official until the King James Version (1611). The most troubled part of Parker’s primacy involved the increasing conflict with the extremer reformers in the Church of England, known from about 1565 as Precisians, or Puritans (who were not curbed until after his death at age 71).

25 Feb 1570 AD: Mr. (Pope) Pius V Excommunicates Queen Elizabeth 1

25 Feb 1570.  Mr. (Pope) Pius V Excommunicates Queen Elizabeth 1.


The story below has the date wrong.  According to the official Roman site for Papal bulls, the date for the bull of excommunication was 25 Feb 1570, not 27 Apr 1570.  We'll address that in another post.

The story is told at: http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/pius-v-excommunicated-queen-elizabeth-i-11630017.html

During the Reformation, England broke away from the Roman Church. Mary Tudor briefly reestablished the connection, but when Elizabeth came to the throne, she saw that it was politically expedient (and perhaps morally preferable) to uphold the reformed church and did so. Like her father before her, she headed the English church through an act of Parliament, although her private chapel services remained more Catholic than Protestant.

On this day, April 27, 1570, Pope Pius V issued a bull against her. He claimed that there was no salvation outside the Roman Church and that the pope alone was successor to Peter and head of the earthly church. The ungodly had grown in power and "Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this."

The pope went on to excommunicate Elizabeth. "...we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ."

In his fourth point, he said "And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever."

He forbade all nobles, subjects and people to obey Elizabeth on pain of excommunication. This, of course, placed England's Catholics in a trying position. While most were loyal to the throne, some used the papal statement as an excuse to plot against Elizabeth for the purpose of replacing her with a Catholic. Elizabeth cracked down on these opponents with vigor. Innocent Catholics suffered alongside the guilty.

The bull concluded with the words, "Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

Elizabeth survived this blast and maintained high popular approval during much of her reign. She is admired by historians as one of England's greatest monarchs, and according to Thomas Fuller, was also admired by Pope Sixtus the Fifth.

Bibliography:

1.      "Elizabeth I." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.

2.      Fuller, Thomas. "The Life of Queen Elizabeth." The Holy State and the Profane State, Volume II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938; p. 312ff.

3.      Lataste, T. "Pope St. Pius V." The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1914.

4.      Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1957.

5.      "Pope Pius V's Bull Against Elizabeth (1570)." http://tudorhistory.org/primary/papalbull.html.

6.      Various encyclopedia and internet articles on Elizabeth, Pius V and the excommunication.

Last updated May, 2007.

BBC: Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England (59 Mins)

Elizabethan Church of England, Adiaphora, & Imperial Edict

20 March 1563.


On March 20, 1563, an appeal was made to the ecclesiastical commissioners by twenty petitioners to exempt them from the use of vestments. Miles Coverdale was one of them. Later, Miles Coverdale refused to attend Lambeth over the "vestments, fashions and haberdashery" issue as ordered by Mr. (Canterbury) Matthew Parker.


Anglicanism’s adiaphora = “You’ll wear our ecclesiastical uniforms and outfits that we tell ya,’ by God you will.”


Elizabeth's "Adiaphora" = in essence and by another name, was Elizabeth's "divine law."


Miles Coverdale, Godfather at the baptism of one of Knox's children in Geneva, Bible translator, and former Bishop of Exeter, refused mandatory "uniforms and haberdasher" laws. The same for old John Foxe. Willing to use the vast majority of the BCP, they weren't buying the "adiaphora" argument as allegedly adiaphora, but back to old Miles Coverdale--Tyndale's assistant. If truly adiaphora, then the vestments weren't needed but voluntary. But the Crown and Canterbury weren't buying the logical logic.


Old Miles Coverdale, a sensible scholar, Reformed Churchman, Bible translator, comrade of other Marian exiles, who suffered for the faith, never bought into the supremacism nor fashion puerilities of Lambeth and the Royal palace.


By summer of 1566, Coverdale left St. Magnus Martyr by the London Bridge. He was near 80. Mr. Matthew Parker (Canterbury), a pliable tool, had summoned the London clergy to Lambeth for the enforcement of Elizabeth’s vestarian-laws—which Parker did not care about, as a few letters show, but which he supported since Elizabeth had ruled; she was the “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England, after all. Rather than do a “buy-in” for a position, the old scholar, Coverdale, resigned his living at St. Magnus. Several letters from London clerics were sent to Zurich and Geneva about the child-playground-developments. Coverdale discreetly—but visibly—absented himself from Parker’s summons to Lambeth.


Ya’ don’t bulldoze an old, experienced, informed, Biblically-driven, theologically trained and Reformed Churchman long acquainted with suffering, poverty, tyrannies, and exile.


As might be expected, he had a “keen following in Puritan circles” those wicked non-conformists of the lower sort tongue in cheek). But, he accepted poverty over preferment, consistency before compromise, the Scriptures above and ruling tradition, and principles above pandering to a Queen. He genuinely believed in Scriptures, the “supreme” [and final] Judge in all things, matters, opinions, councils and independent thoughts. That’s Reformed theology.


In JAN 1569, he preached his last sermon, about 83 years old, at his former parish, St. Magnus. In other words, he was the former minister in attendance but without the post—having resigned over principle. However, for whatever reason, the presiding minister was not present or available. But Coverdale was in attendance, but not presiding, an indication of his acceptance of the-then-used 1559 Book of Common Prayer (or, at least, in the main, as was the case for Anglo-Puritans). John Hooker (supra) described it:


“…certain men of the parish came unto him, and earnestly entreated that considering the multitude was great, and that it was pity they should be disappointed of their expectation, that it would please him to take the place for that time. But he excused his age and infirmities thereof, and that his memory failed him, his voice scarce could be heard, and he not able to do it, that they would hold him excused. Nevertheless such were their importunate requests that, would he nould [sic] he, he must and did yield unto their requests: and between two men he was carried up into the pulpit, where God did with his spirit so strengthen him, that he made his last and the best and the most godly sermon that ever he did in all his life. And very shortly after he died, being very honourably buried with the presence of the duchess of Suffolk, the earl of Bedford, and many others, honourable and worshipful personages."


Coverdale died on 20 JAN 1569. He was buried in the chancel of St. Bartholomew by the Exchange under the “communion table” [hint, TFOs, the “table” not the Laudian altar…gotta a problem there? Cranmer and Coverdale didn’t.]


The backstory to the childish-playground debate in Anglican adiaphoristic non-adiaphorisms.


Wikipedia gives some background.


“On March 20, 1563, an appeal was made to the ecclesiastical commissioners by twenty petitioners to exempt them from the use of vestments. These included a number of prominent clergy, mainly in the diocese of London, whose bishop, Grindal, had packed his see with former exiles and activists for reform. The petition was approved by all the commissioners except Parker and Guest, who rejected it.


“Sampson and Humphrey were the first nonconformist leaders to be targeted by Parker and whose steadfast refusal to conform led to Sampson's quick deprivation in 1565, as he was directly under the queen's authority. Humphrey, under the jurisdiction of Robert Horne, the bishop of Winchester, was able to return to his position as president of Magdalen College, Oxford, and was later offered by Horne a benefice in Sarum, though with Sarum's bishop, Jewel, opposing this. At this time, Bullinger was counselling Horne with a position more tolerant of vestments, while nonconformist agitation was taking place among students at St John's College, Cambridge.


“Tuesday, March 26, 1566, brought the peak of enforcement against nonconformity, with the diocese of London targeted as an example, despite Parker's expectation that it would leave many churches `destitute for service this Easter, and that many [clergy] will forsake their livings, and live at printing, teaching their children, or otherwise as they can.' The London clergy were assembled at Lambeth Palace. Parker had requested but failed to gain the attendance of William Cecil, Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon, and the Lord Marquess of Northampton, so it was left to Parker himself, bishop Grindal, the dean of Westminster, and some canonists. One former nonconformist, Robert Cole, stood before the assembly in full canonical habit. There was no discussion. The ultimatum was issued that the clergy would appear as Cole—in a square cap, gown, tippet, and surplice. They would `inviolably observe the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen majesty's injunctions: and the Book of Convocation.' The clergy were ordered to commit themselves on the spot, in writing, with only the words volo or nolo. Sixty-one subscribed; thirty-seven did not and were immediately suspended with their livings sequestered. A three-month grace period was given for these clergy to change their minds before they would be fully deprived.


“The deprivations were to be carried out under the authority of Parker's Advertisements, which he had just published as a revised form of the original articles defining ecclesiastical conformity. (The full title is Advertisements partly for due order in the publique administration of common prayers and usinge the holy sacramentes, and partly for the apparrell of all persons ecclesiasticall, by vertue of the Queenes maiesties letters commaunding the same.) Parker had not obtained the crown's authorisation for this mandate, however, though he increasingly positioned himself toward the nonconformist clergy as acting on and under the authority of the state. Royal authority stood to simplify the problem for him, because disobedience of the monarch was disobedience of God. However, without explicit backing from the queen and council, this assertion lacked force. Thus, the nonconformist reaction to Parker's crackdown was, as he expected, a vociferous assertion of their persecuted status with some serious displays of disobedience. John Stow records in his Memoranda that in most parishes, the sextons did not change the service if they had conducted it without vestments previously: `in some places the ministers themselves did service in their gowns or cloaks with turning collars and hats as they were wont to do, and preached stoutly and against the order taken by the queen and council and the bishops for consenting there unto.' By some lights, these clergy constituted an emerging Puritan faction, and that word was indeed first recorded as being in use at this time as term of abuse for nonconformists.”


Miles Coverdale, as well as old John Foxe, weren’t up for the “abusive,” “elbows-to-the-head,” “boots-to-the-neck,” hubristic and unnecessary authoritarianism of Elizabeth and Parker.

"Adiaphora" = Elizabeth’s and Parker’s "non-adiaphora."

(History Channel): Mini-Bio Elizabeth 1 (1533-1603)

Queen Elizabeth I was born in 1533 in England.She was a princess but declared illegitimate, eventually claiming the throne at 25. She held it 44 years and kept England in the ascendant through economic, political and religious turmoil. She died in 1603.

25 Feb 1570: Pope Pius V Excommunicates Queen Elizabeth & C of E

25 February 1570.

Elizabeth 1 and her Protestant, Reformed, confessional, creedal, holy, catholic, apostolic and Anglican followers—the entire Church of England--are excommunicated by the Pope. In short, if obeyed, putting the clerics on strike.

Hit piece (= excommunication) put out on Queen Elizabeth 1 by Pope Pius V. Three things: (1) she has been put out of the Roman church and is, according to the Pope, under the status of the damned (= damned to hell, no purgatory option), (2) all English subjects are free from oaths of loyalty to the Queen, and (3) English subjects are encouraged to assassinate the heretic Queen. Even the persecutorial King of Spain, Philip II, who ruthlessly oppressed the Dutch Reformed was appalled at Pope Pius’s decree of excommunication. Also, as an aside, take note in the Pope’s Bull-Crap or Bull (abbreviated term) that he exclaims that the Church of England has followed Calvin.  The Pope was more accurate than some modern Anglican commentators, historiographers and anti-Genevans. Also, take note that the Pope’s Bull is gaslighting windbaggery and hubris (then, as now). Note the bull, cited below.

We bring you Wikipedia, the text of the Papal Bull, and a brief (but wrong on the date) article from Christianity.com. Now, for Wiki’s brief.

Wikipedia brings the following:

“Regnans in Excelsis ("reigning on high") was a papal bull issued on 25 February 1570 by Pope Pius V declaring "Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime" to be a heretic and releasing all her subjects from any allegiance to her, even when they had "sworn oaths to her", and excommunicating any that obeyed her orders.[1]

"We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication."
“The bull, written in Latin, is named from its incipit, the first three words of its text, which mean "ruling from on high" (a reference to God).[2] Among the queen's offences, "She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics."

“The Papacy had previously reconciled with Mary I, who returned the Church of England to Catholicism. After Mary's death in November 1558, Elizabeth's Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which re-established the Church of England’s independence from papal authority. This bull can be seen as an act of retaliation for the religious settlement, but as it was delayed by eleven years it was most likely instigated by pressure from Philip II of Spain, the Duke of Norfolk or Mary, Queen of Scots, all of whom had a vested interest in overthrowing Elizabeth. The delay was caused in part by a number of royal Catholic suitors who hoped to marry Elizabeth, and because she had tolerated Catholic worship in private. The Bull was issued in support of, but following, the 1569 "Northern Rebellion" in England, and the first Desmond Rebellion in Ireland, with foreign Catholic support, and hardened her opinion against her landowning Catholic subjects.

“Contents

• 1 Aftermath of the bull
• 2 Suspension 1580–84
• 3 Renewal in 1588
• 4 See also
• 5 Notes
• 6 External links

“Aftermath of the bull

“The bull provoked the English government into taking more repressive actions against the Jesuits, whom they feared to be acting in the interests of Spain and the papacy. This reaction soon seemed justified: it was the publication in England of Pius's exhortation that gave the impetus to the Ridolfi plot, in which the Duke of Norfolk was to kidnap or murder Queen Elizabeth, install Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne and then become de facto king by marrying her.[3]

“Suspension 1580–84

“At the request of the Jesuits and to relieve the pressures on Catholics in England, Pope Gregory XIII issued a clarification or suspension in 1580, explaining that Catholics should obey the queen outwardly in all civil matters, until such time as a suitable opportunity presented itself for her overthrow.[4] Soon after the start of the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) an English Act "against Jesuits, seminary priests and other such like disobedient persons" was passed into law.

“Renewal in 1588

“In 1588 Pope Sixtus V, in support of the Spanish Armada, renewed the solemn bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth I, for the regicide of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1587 as well as the previously catalogued offences against the Catholic Church.[5] During the threat of invasion by the Spanish Armada, it transpired that most of the Catholic residents in England remained loyal, and that those who were a real threat to the throne, like William Cardinal Allen and Robert Parsons, were already exiles.

“While the Bull had little impact in England, it caused a rift in Elizabeth's Kingdom of Ireland where most of the population remained Roman Catholic; Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond had used the Bull as justification for the second Desmond Rebellion.[6] While divisions had existed before 1570, after the Bull the official world based in Dublin conformed to Anglicanism while the majority of the Parliament of Ireland were Catholics until 1613.[7]

“See also

• John Felton (martyr)
• Religion in the United Kingdom
“Notes
1. Jump up ^ McGrath, Patrick (1967). Papists and Puritans under Elizabeth I. Poole, England: Blandford Press. p. 69.
2. Jump up ^ Text of Regnans in excelsis, 1570.
3. Jump up ^ Haynes, Alan (2004). Walsingham: Elizabethan Spymaster and Statesman. Stroud, England: Sutton Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 0-7509-3122-1.
4. Jump up ^ P. J. Corish, "The origins of Catholic nationalism", part 8, vol. III, pp 15-18, in "The History of Irish Catholicism" (Dublin, 1967)
5. Jump up ^ Text of Sixtus V's 1588 Bull against Queen Elizabeth in support of the Armada
6. Jump up ^ Canny, Nicholas P. (2001). Making Ireland British, 1580-1650. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 124. ISBN 0-19-925905-4.
7. Jump up ^ MacCurtain M., Tudor and Stuart Ireland Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 1972

External links

Here endeth Wikipedia and here we have more on the Bull from Rome.

Text of Regnans in Excelsis of Pope Saint Pius V at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5regnans.htm

"Regnans in Excelsis
Excommunicating Elizabeth I of England
Pope St Pius V - 25 February1570

"Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

"He that reigneth on high, to whom 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, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

"1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children's faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gather 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.

"2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion.

"3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognizing that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of justice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

"4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

"5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship, fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the above said matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

"6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibited or shown.

"Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 25 February1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

"Pius PP."

Now, and lastly, an article (with a dating error) from: http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/pius-v-excommunicated-queen-elizabeth-i-11630017.html

“During the Reformation, England broke away from the Roman Church. Mary Tudor briefly reestablished the connection, but when Elizabeth came to the throne, she saw that it was politically expedient (and perhaps morally preferable) to uphold the reformed church and did so. Like her father before her, she headed the English church through an act of Parliament, although her private chapel services remained more Catholic than Protestant.

“On this day, April 27, 1570, Pope Pius V issued a bull against her. He claimed that there was no salvation outside the Roman Church and that the pope alone was successor to Peter and head of the earthly church. The ungodly had grown in power and "Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this."

"The pope went on to excommunicate Elizabeth. "...we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ."
In his fourth point, he said "And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever."

“He forbade all nobles, subjects and people to obey Elizabeth on pain of excommunication. This, of course, placed England's Catholics in a trying position. While most were loyal to the throne, some used the papal statement as an excuse to plot against Elizabeth for the purpose of replacing her with a Catholic. Elizabeth cracked down on these opponents with vigor. Innocent Catholics suffered alongside the guilty.

“The bull concluded with the words, "Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate."

“Elizabeth survived this blast and maintained high popular approval during much of her reign. She is admired by historians as one of England's greatest monarchs, and according to Thomas Fuller, was also admired by Pope Sixtus the Fifth."

“Bibliography:

1. "Elizabeth I." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.
2. Fuller, Thomas. "The Life of Queen Elizabeth." The Holy State and the Profane State, Volume II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938; p. 312ff.
3. Lataste, T. "Pope St. Pius V." The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1914.
4. Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1957.
5. "Pope Pius V's Bull Against Elizabeth (1570)." http://tudorhistory.org/primary/papalbull.html.
6. Various encyclopedia and internet articles on Elizabeth, Pius V and the excommunication.

Dynastic Succession of the Tudors to the Stuarts

Elton, G.R. The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 

It is available at: 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tudor-Constitution-Documents-Commentary/dp/052128757X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1374782952&sr=8-4&keywords=G.R.+Elton. From the amazon.com website, the following commendation is made: “There is no alternative in sight which comes close to conveying the story of the English Reformation in narrative power and substantial information.” Heiko A. Oberman, University of Arizona.

(A rich plethora of other volumes are on offer from Mr. Elton.)

Structure of the book over 482 pages and 10 chapters:

1. Crown
2. Council
3. Seals and Secretary
4. Financial Administration
5. Ancient Courts
6. Conciliar Courts
7. Ecclesiastical Courts
8. Parliament
9. Church
10. Local Courts

Each chapter above consists of two things: (1) Mr. Elton’s introductory commentary and (2) a long list of documents from 1485-1601, including landmark legal rulings. This volume will bring the Royal, Parliamentary, legal and ecclesiastical institutions into considerations on the English Reformation.

Of course, as a premier historian, Mr. Elton includes a scholarly bibliography.

Mr. Elton notes there has been a “spectacular expansion of Tudor studies” in the last 50 years.

We bring preliminary musings.

"To rule or not to rule? Rule by military victory, dynastic succession, or both in some combination? Or, with other factors like a Parliament and the Church too?"

The Tudors had been “victors in civil war.” Henry VII had satisfied the first duty of kingship: “govern effectively and to the satisfaction of the greater part of the realm” (1).

The Tudors were never “altogether free from dynastic worries” having observed other “disturbed dynastic successions.” It was “hereditary right” that played the largest part. Of course, wars could alter that.

Henry VII “took the simple line of describing himself as king once he had overthrown Richard III” (1). Or, might makes right. This was not a legal basis, but one of a "victor in war." Nonetheless, heirs “harnessed the dynastic principle.”

Henry’s 1st Parliament was proof enough. “Only a true king can summon a true Parliament.”

Following victory in war and the calling of the Parliament, it was not a far leap to this theological conclusion: “All Tudors rested the title on accomplished fact, which, they argued announced God’s choice.” There there. That's that. Never mind elections as we know them.

In 1495, Henry VII was safe on the throne, all “pretenders overcome,” and “European recognition” achieved. But doubts “could not be avoided” (2).

In 1502, the presumptive Tudor heir, Arthur Tudor, died. Arthur's early death was unexpected at the nubile age of 15 after a brief marriage lasting 20 weeks with Catherine of Aragon.

Upon the death of Arthur, the next presumptive heir in dynastic succession, young Prince Henry, assumed the royal duties of his brother. He would have several years in that role.

Upon the death of Henry VII in 1509, Prince Harry fleeted up and became Henry VIII. To establish, or reaffirm, the Tudor relationship with Spain, Henry VIII declared that he would marry Catherine of Aragaon.  Never mind the troubled issues of the Papal dispensation from Julius II.  Harry would marry Catherine.

Henry VIII came to the throne at age 18 as “an adult and to the music of general acclamation” (2).

But, dynastic issues remained. Catherine was not breeding heirs for Henry.

He divorced Catherine (or had his marriage annulled) and married the pregnant Ann Boleyn. Mr. Cranmer was in the mix as we've been noting.

With "dynastic issues" at bar, the "First Act of Succession" was passed. Mary was "bastardized." That was that. Thereby, "the future issue" of Henry and Ann would be legitimated.

The marriage to Ann went south. Ann lost her head. Henry took up with Jane Seymour. The dynastic issue gets more complicated.

A “Second Act of Succession” was ordered up—now Mary and Elizabeth were bastards. And that was that. Two bastards, not one.

The "Second Act of Succession" provided for the "future issue" from old Harry and Jane Seymour. Any future issue would be legitimate, "dynastically."

Of note, in this act, there was an allowance to the King “to bequeath by will” the throne as if “the crown were a piece of property.” This will be effected when the Stuarts fleet up in 1603 to the English throne. It is undoubted that "dynastic issues" were involved in poor Harry's matrimonial crusades.

In 1544, a “Third Act of Succession” was declared. This reaffirmed and reiterated that the King could determine dynastic succession by will.

In this "Third Act," the succession was outlined: Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth in that order (“the previous bastardizations being now ignored”). Might makes right, right?

In December 1546, Henry "refines" the will. He provides another potential line of succession.

If the Edwardian, Marian and Elizabethan succession should fail to have issue, the throne would devolve to the issue of Henry VIII’s oldest sister, Margaret Tudor (the Stuart line).

The question of “succession remained a vital issue” during Elizabeth 1’s reign (3). With Edward and Mary dead and Elizabeth childless, who's next? Henry had the foresight to anticipate this.

Henry VIII’s will came into “operation without trouble or question.”

James 1st will come to the English throne in 1603. He was the son of Henry VIII's eldest sister.

"To rule or not to rule? Rule by military victory, dynastic succession, or both in some combination? Or, with other factors like a Parliament and the Church too?"

Queen Elizabeth 1: Marriage, Religion, Marriage Proposal, Farewell Speech

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1.asp#Response to a Delegation on her Marriage

 Modern History Sourcebook:  Queen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and peeches         

Behind these texts is the difficulty Elizabeth I had in ensuring stability in the present, and security for the future. The problem for the Tudor Dynasty, which had come to power through Henry VII's 1485 triumph in Wars of the Roses, was in ensuring the succession. The key to peace was to have an undisputed heir. Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, had had three children survive him. Two, Mary and Elizabeth, were female, and so on his death, Henry VIII was succeeded by his ten-year old son, Edward VI in 1547.

Edward died six years later, and even though they were women, England preferred to crown Mary as a legitimate heir rather than to search for a suitable male. Mary, though, not only revealed herself to be a Catholic who persecuted Protestants, but she married Philip II, King of Spain, one of the most aggressive and devout foes of Protestantism. Mary jailed her sister on suspicion of fomenting a revolt. Five years later, Mary died, and so in 1558, twenty-five year old Elizabeth became Queen of England.

• Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage 1559
• On Religion 1559
• Response to Erik of Sweden's Proposal 1560
• Response to Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1566
• On Religion, 1583
• Response to Ambassador of Poland
• The Farewell Speech, 1601

---

Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1559

Elizabeth's response to a delegation from Parliament who petitioned her to marry soon, and not to marry a foreigner.  The delegation wanted to be sure of the succession by her having a male child, and they wanted it to be English through and through, so that no foreigner would have a claim to the throne (she was under pressure to marry her sister's widower, Philip of Spain).

As I have good cause, so do I give you all my hearty thanks for the good zeal and loving care you seem to have, as well towards me as to the whole state of your country. Your petition I perceive consisteth of three parts and my answer to the same shall depend of two.

And to the first part I may say unto you that from my years of understanding since I first had consideration of myself to be born a servitor of almighty God, I happily chose this kind of life in which I yet live, which I assure you for my own part hath hitherto best contented myself and I trust hath been most acceptable to God. From the which, if either ambition of high estate offered to me in marriage by the pleasure and appointment of my prince whereof I have some records in this presence (as you our Lord Treasurer well know); or if the eschewing of the danger of my enemies or the avoiding of the peril of death, whose messenger or rather continual watchman, the prince's indignation, was not a little time daily before my eyes (by whose means although I know or justly may suspect, yet I will not now utter, or if the whole cause were in my sister herself, I will not now burden her therewith, because I will not charge the dead); if any of these, I say, could have drawn or dissuaded me from this kind of life, I had not now remained in this estate wherein you see me.

But so constant have I always continued in this determination, although my youth and words may seem to some hardly to agree together, yet is it most true that at this day I stand free from any other meaning that either I have had in times past or have at this present; with which trade of life I am so thoroughly acquainted that I trust God, who hath hitherto therein preserved and led me by the hand, will not now of his goodness suffer me to go alone.

For the other part, the manner of your petition I do well like of and take in good part, because that it is simple and containeth no limitation of place or person. If it had been otherwise, I must needs have misliked it very much and thought it in you a very great presumption, being unfitting and altogether unmeet for you to require them that may command or those to appoint whose parts are to desire, or such to bind and limit whose duties are to obey, or to take upon you to draw my love to your likings or frame my will to your fantasies; for a guerdon constrained and a gift freely given can never agree together.

Nevertheless if any of you be in suspect, that whensoever it may please God to incline my heart to another kind of life, you may well assure yourselves my meaning is not to do or determine anything wherewith the realm may or shall have just cause to be discontented. And therefore put that clean out of your heads. For I assure you--what credit my assurances may have with you I cannot tell, but what credit it shall deserve to have the sequel shall declare--I will never in that matter conclude anything that shall be prejudicial to the realm, for the weal, good and safety whereof I will never shun to spend my life.

And whomsoever my chance shall be to light upon, I trust he shall be as careful for the realm and you--I will not say as myself, because I cannot so certainly determine of any other; but at the least ways, by my goodwill and desire he shall be such as shall be as careful for the preservation of the realm and you as myself. And albeit it might please almighty God to continue me still in this mind to live out of the state of marriage, yet it is not to be feared but He will so work in my heart and in your wisdom as good provision by his help may be made in convenient time, whereby the realm shall not remain destitute of an heir. That may be a fit governor, and peradventure more beneficial to the realm than such offspring as may come of me. For although I be never so careful of your well doings and mind ever so to be, yet may my issue grow out of kind and become perhaps ungracious.

And in the end this shall be for me sufficient, that a marble stone shall declare that a Queen, having reigned such a time, lived and died a virgin.

And here I end, and take your coming unto me in good part, and give unto you all eftsoons my hearty thanks, more yet for your zeal and good meaning than for your petition.

On  Religion, 1559

The next document, also from 1559, is a reply to some English Bishops who wanted to continue Mary's pro-Catholic policies. They maintained that her father, Henry VIII had been influenced by heretics to quarrel with the Pope.

Sirs,

As to your entreaty for us to listen to you we waive it; yet do return you this our answer. Our realm and subjects have been long wanderers, walking astray, whilst they were under the tuition of Romish pastors, who advised them to own a wolf for their head (in lieu of a careful shepherd) whose inventions, heresies and schisms be so numerous, that the flock of Christ have fed on poisonous shrubs for want of wholesome pastures. And whereas you hit us and our subjects in the teeth that the Romish Church first planted the Catholic within our realm, the records and chronicles of our realm testify the contrary; and your own Romish idolatry maketh you liars; witness the ancient monument of Gildas unto which both foreign and domestic have gone in pilgrimage there to offer. This author testifieth Joseph of Arimathea to be the first preacher of the word of God within our realms. Long after that, when Austin came from Rome, this our realm had bishops and priests therein, as is well known to the learned of our realm by woeful experience, how your church entered therein by blood; they being martyrs for Christ and put to death because they denied Rome's usurped authority.

As for our father being withdrawn from the supremacy of Rome by schismatical and heretical counsels and advisers; who we pray advised him more or flattered him than you good Mr Heath, when you were Bishop of Rochester? And than you Mr Bonner when you were archdeacon? And you Mr Turberville? Nay further, who was more an adviser of our father than your great Stephen Gardiner, when he lived? Are ye not then those schismatics and heretics? If so, suspend your evil censures. Recollect, was it our sister's conscience made her so averse to our father and brother's actions as to undo what they had perfected? Or was it not you, or such like advisers that dissuaded her and stirred her up against us and other of the subjects?

Response to Erik of Sweden's Proposal, 1560

Elizabeth had dozens of suitors during her life, none so ardent as King Erik of Sweden, who had proposed to her when she was only the "Lady Elizabeth." In 1560, he tried to come to England, but was thwarted by storms, so he sent his brother as a proxy groom. Here is Elizabeth's reply:

Most Serene Prince Our Very Dear Cousin,

A letter truly yours both in the writing and sentiment was given us on 30 December by your very dear brother, the Duke of Finland. And while we perceive there from that the zeal and love of your mind towards us is not diminished, yet in part we are grieved that we cannot gratify your Serene Highness with the same kind of affection. And that indeed does not happen because we doubt in any way of your love and honour, but, as often we have testified both in words and writing, that we have never yet conceived a feeling of that kind of affection towards anyone.

We therefore beg your Serene Highness again and again that you be pleased to set a limit to your love, that it advance not beyond the laws of friendship for the present nor disregard them in the future. And we in our turn shall take care that whatever can be required for the holy preservation of friendship between Princes we will always perform towards your Serene Highness. It seems strange for your Serene Highness to write that you understand from your brother and your ambassadors that we have entirely determined not to marry an absent husband; and that we shall give you no certain reply until we shall have seen your person.

We certainly think that if God ever direct our hearts to consideration of marriage we shall never accept or choose any absent husband how powerful and wealthy a Prince soever. But that we are not to give you an answer until we have seen your person is so far from the thing itself that we never even considered such a thing. But I have always given both to your brother, who is certainly a most excellent prince and deservedly very dear to us, and also to your ambassador likewise the same answer with scarcely any variation of the words, that we do not conceive in our heart to take a husband, but highly commend this single life, and hope that your Serene Highness will no longer spend time in waiting for us.

God keep your Serene Highness for many years in good health and safety. From our Palace at Westminster, 25 February.

Your Serene Highness' sister and cousin,
Elizabeth

Response to Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1566

In 1566, Parliament was still nagging Elizabeth to marry. A delegation from both houses came to petition her. Here is part of the angry dressing-down she gave them:

'Was I not born in the realm? Were my parents born in any foreign country? Is not my kingdom here? Whom have I oppressed? Whom have I enriched to other's harm? What turmoil have I made in this commonwealth that I should be suspected to have no regard to the same? How have I governed since my reign? I will be tried by envy itself. I need not to use many words, for my deeds do try me.

'Well, the matter whereof they would have made their petition (as I am informed) consisteth in two points: in my marriage, and in the limitations of the succession of the crown, wherein my marriage was first placed, as for manners' sake. I did send them answer by my council, I would marry (although of mine own disposition I was not inclined thereunto) but that was not accepted nor credited, although spoken by their Prince.

'I will never break the word of a prince spoken in a public place, for my honour's sake. And therefore I say again, I will marry as soon as I can conveniently, if God take not him away with whom I mind to marry, or myself, or else some other great let happen. I can say no more except the party were present. And I hope to have children, otherwise I would never marry.

A strange order of petitioners that will make a request and cannot be otherwise assured but by the prince's word, and yet will not believe it when it is spoken.

'The second point was for the limitation of the succession of the crown, wherein was nothing said for my safety, but only for themselves. A strange thing that the foot should direct the head in so weighty a cause', a cause, she pointed out, to which she had give careful consideration since it concerned her more nearly than it concerned them.

'I am sure there was not one of them that ever was a second person, as I have been and have tasted of the practices against my sister, who I would to God were alive again. I had great occasion to hearken to their motions for whom some of them are of the common house.'

She forbore to name those who had plotted against the Crown in Mary's reign, contenting herself with:

'And were it not for my honour, their knavery should be known. There were occasions in me at that time, I stood in danger of my life, my sister was so incensed against me. I did differ from her in religion and I was sought for divers ways. And so shall never be my successor. I have conferred with those that are well learned, and have asked their opinions touching the limitation of succession.'

The lawyers, she said, had been silent; they understood the legal complications but 'they could not tell what to say considering the great peril to the realm.'

As for those who thought they knew better:

'They would have twelve or fourteen limited in succession and the more the better. And those shall be of such uprightness and so divine, as in them shall be divinity itself. Kings were wont to honour philosophers, but if I had such I would honour them as angels that should have such piety in them that they would not seek where they are the second to be the first, and where the third to be the second and so forth. It is said I am no divine. Indeed I studied nothing else but divinity till I came to the crown; and then I gave myself to the study of that which was meet for government, and am not ignorant of stories wherein appeareth what hath fallen out for ambition of kingdoms--as in Spain, Naples, Portugal and at home; and what cocking hath been between the father and the son for the same. You would have a limitation of succession. Truly if reason did not subdue will in me, I would cause you to deal in it, so pleasant a thing it should be unto me. But I stay it for your benefit. For if you should have liberty to treat of it, there be so many competitors--some kinsfolk, some servants, and some tenants; some would speak for their master, and some for their mistress, and every man for his friend--that it would be an occasion of a greater charge than a subsidy. And if my will did not yield to reason, it should be that thing I would gladliest desire to see you deal in it.'

And still she had not finished. She accused them of errors; she accused them of 'lack of good foresight'; and then she turned on the bishops with withering scorn:

'I do not marvel, though Domini Doctores, with you my Lords, did so use themselves therein, since after my brother's death they openly preached and set forth that my sister and I were bastards. Well, I wish not the death of any man, but only this I desire, that they which have been the practisers herein may before their deaths repent the same, and show some open confession of their fault, whereby the scabbed sheep may be known from the whole. As for my own part I care not for death, for all men are mortal; and though I be a woman yet I have as good a courage answerable to my place as ever my father had. I am your anointed Queen. I will never be by violence constrained to do anything. I thank God I am indeed endowed with such qualities that if I were turned out of the realm in my petticoat I were able to live in any place in Christendom.

'Your petition is to deal in the limitation of the succession. At this present it is not convenient, nor never shall be without some peril unto you, and certain danger unto me. But as soon as there may be a convenient time and that it may be done with least peril unto you, although never without great danger unto me, I will deal therein for your safety and offer it unto you as your prince and head without requests. For it is monstrous that the feet should direct the head.'

She told the Lord Chief justice to deliver this message to the House of Lords, and Cecil to inform the Commons. It took Cecil three drafts to word the matter diplomatically enough for it to bear repeating.

On Religion, 1583

In 1583, Elizabeth addressed Parliament and took time to discuss religion. There were still "Romish" factions, but also many upstart Protestant sects, like Puritans, Baptists etc. (In here, as in many of her statements, she uses the words "Prince", "King", and "Queen" interchangeably).

One matter touches me so near as I may not overskip [she told them]; religion is the ground on which all other matters ought to take root, and being corrupted may mar all the tree; and that there be some fault finders with the order of the clergy, which so may make a slander to myself and the Church whose overruler God hath made me, whose negligence cannot be excused if any schisms or errors heretical were suffered.

Thus much I must say that some faults and negligence may grow and be, as in all other great charges it happeneth; and what vocation without? All which if you, my Lords of the clergy, do not amend, I mean to depose you. Look ye therefore well to your charges.

I am supposed to have many studies [she reminded them) but most philosophical. I must yield this to be true, that I suppose few that be no professors have read more. And I need not tell you that I am so simple that I understand not, nor so forgetful that I remember not. And yet amidst so many volumes I hope God's book hath not been my seldomest lectures; in which we find that which by reason, for my part, we ought to believe--that seeing so great wickedness and griefs in the world in which we live but as wayfaring pilgrims, we must suppose that God would never have made us but for a better place and of more comfort than we find here. I know no creature that breatheth whose life standeth hourly in more peril for it than mine own; who entered not into my state without sight of manifold dangers of life and crown, as one that had the mightiest and the greatest to wrestle with. Then it followeth that I regarded it so much as I left myself behind my care. And so you see that you wrong me too much if any such there be as doubt my coldness in that behalf.

For if I were not persuaded that mine were the true way of God's will, God forbid I should live to prescribe it to you. Take you heed lest Ecclesiastes say not too true; they that fear the hoary frost the snow shall fall upon them.

I see many overbold with God Almighty making too many subtle scannings of His blessed will, as lawyers do with human testaments. The presumption is so great, as I may not suffer it. Yet mind I not hereby to animate Romanists (which what adversaries they be to mine estate is sufficiently well known) nor tolerate newfangledness. I mean to guide them both by God's holy true rule. In both parts be perils. And of the latter I must pronounce them dangerous to a kingly rule: to have every man according to his own censure, to make a doom of a validity and privity of his Prince's government with a common veil and cover of God's word, whose followers must not be judged, but by private men's exposition. God defend you from such a ruler that so evil will guide you.

Now I conclude that your love and care neither is nor shall be bestowed upon a careless Prince, but such as for your good will passeth as little for this world as who careth least. With thanks for your free subsidy, a manifest show of the abundance of your good wills, the which I assure you, but to be employed to your weal, I could be better pleased to return than receive.

Response to Ambassador of Poland

In the above piece, Elizabeth reveals how thorough was her humanistic education, here is another example (intro by Maria Perry)

The Court was at Greenwich when an ambassador from the kingdom of Poland arrived. He was the son of the Duke of Finland, who had wooed Elizabeth almost forty years earlier as the proxy of Erik of Sweden. Robert Cecil, now firmly established in the Secretary's post which Elizabeth had granted him while Essex was at Cadiz, wrote to the earl aboard ship, describing the ambassador as 'a gentleman of excellent fashion, wit, discourse, language and person'. Elizabeth was struck by his appearance and evident intelligence. She decided to receive him publicly in the Presence Chamber. He wore a long robe of black velvet covered with jewels, and came to kiss Elizabeth's hand as she stood under her canopy of estate. Then he backed away to begin his speech. As the Latin phrases resounded through the Presence Chamber, astonishment covered the faces of the assembled courtiers. The quarrel between the Queen of England and the King of Spain was affecting the King of Poland's merchants, disrupting his trade routes and violating the law of nature and of nations. Elizabeth had been expecting a complimentary address. She paused for a few seconds then, turning on the young man, she began her reply in flawless extempore Latin:

O quam decepta fui [rasped the indignant voice] expectavi legationem mihi vero querelam adduxisti. How I have been deceived! I was expecting a diplomatic mission, but you have brought me a quarrel! By virtue of your testimonials I have received you as an ambassador, but I have found you instead a challenger. Never in my life have I heard such audacity. I marvel, indeed I marvel at so great and such unprecedented impertinence in public. Nor can I believe that had your King been here he would have spoken in such words. But if he had, indeed, happened, which I can scarcely credit, to entrust some such matter to your hands, even though the King is young and a King not by birth but by election--and newly elected at that--he would show himself as having a very imperfect understanding of the manner in which such matters are handled between Princes, a manner observed towards us by his betters and which he will perhaps observe in future. As for yourself, you give me the impression of having studied many books, but not yet of having graduated to the books of Princes, rather remaining ignorant of the dealings between Kings. As to the law of nature and of nations of which you make so much mention, know that the law of nature and of nations is thus: when war is declared between Kings, either may cut the other's lines of supply, no matter where they run from and neither may they make it a precondition of their losses that these be made good. This, I say, is the law of nature and of nations. And as for your alliance with the House of Austria by which you set so much store, let it not escape your memory that there was one of that house, who attempted to wrest the kingdom of Poland from your King. For the other matters which are too numerous to be dealt with here and now, you shall wait until you hear what is considered by certain of my counsellors appointed to consider them. Meanwhile farewell and hold your Peace.

'It was one of the best answers in extempore Latin that ever I heard,' wrote Cecil to the absent Essex. Tradition has it that Elizabeth, conscious of her success, turned her back on the unfortunate young diplomat, remarking loudly to her courtiers, 'My lords, I have been forced this day to scour up my rusty old Latin.'

The Farewell Speech, 1601

The "farewell" Golden Speech to parliament. It is worth comparing her views with those of Machiavelli.

On the afternoon of 30 November, 140 Members of the Commons, 141 with the Speaker, crowded into the Presence Chamber and fell on their knees as their sovereign entered the room. She was sixty-eight and in excellent health, but perhaps some guessed that this would be her last Parliament. She had come to deliver what should have been a rasping harangue on finance, but she turned it into 'golden words', which were to be reprinted time and time again up to the eighteenth century, whenever England was in danger, as the Golden Speech of Queen Elizabeth.

Several versions survive, including a printed pamphlet which it is thought Elizabeth may have checked and corrected, but its text is inferior to the moving account by the diarist, Hayward Townshend, who was among those kneeling before her that November afternoon in the Presence Chamber.

Mr Speaker,

We have heard your declaration and perceive your care of our estate. I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure or riches; for that we know how to prize, but love and thanks I count invaluable. And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves. This makes me that I do not so much rejoice that God hath made me to be a Queen, as to be a Queen over so thankful a people. Therefore I have cause to wish nothing more than to content the subject and that is a duty which I owe. Neither do I desire to live longer days than I may see your prosperity and that is my only desire. And as I am that person still yet, under God, hath delivered you and so I trust by the almighty power of God that I shall be his instrument to preserve you from every peril, dishonour, shame, tyranny and oppression, partly by means of your intended helps which we take very acceptably because it manifesteth the largeness of your good loves and loyalties unto your sovereign.

Of myself I must say this: I never was any greedy, scraping grasper, nor a strait fast-holding Prince, nor yet a waster. My heart was never set on any worldly goods. What you bestow on me, I will not hoard it up, but receive it to bestow on you again.

Therefore render unto them I beseech you Mr Speaker, such thanks as you imagine my heart yieldeth, but my tongue cannot express. Mr Speaker, I would wish you and the rest to stand up for I shall yet trouble you with longer speech. Mr Speaker, you give me thanks but I doubt me I have greater cause to give you thanks, than you me, and I charge you to thank them of the Lower House from me. For had I not received a knowledge from you, I might have fallen into the lapse of an error, only for lack of true information.

Since I was Queen, yet did I never put my pen to any grant, but that upon pretext and semblance made unto me, it was both good and beneficial to the subject in general though a private profit to some of my ancient servants, who had deserved well at my hands. But the contrary being found by experience, I am exceedingly beholden to such subjects as would move the same at first. And I am not so simple to suppose but that there be some of the Lower House whom these grievances never touched. I think they spake out of zeal to their countries and not out of spleen or malevolent affection as being parties grieved. That my grants should be grievous to my people and oppressions to be privileged under colour of our patents, our kingly dignity shall not suffer it.

Yea, when I heard it, I could give no rest unto my thoughts until I had reformed it. Shall they, think you, escape unpunished that have oppressed you, and have been respectless of their duty and regardless our honour? No, I assure you, Mr Speaker, were it not more for conscience' sake than for any glory or increase of love that I desire, these errors, troubles, vexations and oppressions done by these varlets and lewd persons not worthy of the name of subjects should not escape without condign punishment. But I perceive they dealt with me like physicians who, ministering a drug, make it more acceptable by giving it a good aromatical savour, or when they give pills do gild them all over.

I have ever used to set the Last Judgement Day before mine eyes and so to rule as I shall be judged to answer before a higher judge, and now if my kingly bounties have been abused and my grants turned to the hurt of my people contrary to my will and meaning, and if any in authority under me have neglected or perverted what I have committed to them, I hope God will not lay their culps and offenses in my charge. I know the title of a King is a glorious title, but assure yourself that the shining glory of princely authority hath not so dazzled the eyes of our understanding, but that we well know and remember that we also are to yield an account of our actions before the great judge. To be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it. For myself I was never so much enticed with the glorious name of a King or royal authority of a Queen as delighted that God hath made me his instrument to maintain his truth and glory and to defend his kingdom as I said from peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression. There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving.

'For I, oh Lord, what am I, whom practices and perils past should not fear? Or what can I do? That I should speak for any glory, God forbid.' And turning to the Speaker and her councilors she said, 'And I pray to you Mr Comptroller, Mr Secretary and you of my Council, that before these gentlemen go into their countries, you bring them all to kiss my hand.'

---

Source:

---

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.

© Paul Halsall, July 1998
halsall@murray.fordham.edu