Westminster Abbey was re-founded as The Collegiate Church of St. Peter by Elizabeth I in 1560. Why is it called a ‘royal peculiar’? Because, it is not under the rule of the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other bishop for that matter. In fact, it functions outside the framework of the Anglican Church and is directly answerable to the monarch or sovereign.
All that remains for me to say is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the right or is required to crown English Heads of State in Westminster Abbey. So far, every English sovereign has been crowned in the abbey (which was orginally a place where Benedictine monks lived) except Edward V and Edward VIII.
Thanks again. I hope you don’t mind me asking so many questions. But, I don’t think you do. So here’s another one. Were the Tudors still required to ask parliament for permission to tax peoples and to go to war?
Never mind, Siohbahn, by the way, I also forgot to mention that Parliament is spelled with a capital letter. Nevertheless, here’s your answer.
During the time the Tudors ascended to power, the legal impact of the Magna Carta had waned. Simultaneously, the dynamic between the monarhy and Parliament underwent substantial changes. For instance, there was a powershift from the House of Lords to the House of Commons.
While the Tudors did not consistently consult Parliament on every decision, they did acknowledge the crucial role of parliamentary support in matters of taxation and war. The evolution of the Crown and Parliament during this era laid the groundwork for significant constitutional developments in England.
Hi, here I am again. Sorry for the delay, but as it’s Sunday, I had a bit of a lie-in and after showering and getting dressed, I went to one of the local supermarkets. I ran into several acquaintances of mine, who hadn’t seen me for a long time and hardly recognized as I’m growing thinner and thinner. However, be that as it may, here’s your answer:
Elizabeth faced many challenges during her reign, including the return of the Marian Exiles from Frankfurt, Zürich and Geneva. Although these exiles had accepted the Elizabethan Settlement in 1559, they often clashed with it as they wanted to eradicate all Roman Catholic remnants and influences from the Ecclesia Anglicana. Historian, Chrisopher Hibbet, notes that the Puritans successfully mustered support in Parliament in 1566, 1571-72 and 1586-87. Initially, Elizabeth was lenient towards the Puritans, after all, she could easily eliminate their well-thought-out political maneuvers by using her veto or by dissolving Parliament. However, her patience wore thin in 1587 when they advocated for a Book of Discipline - a unified confession based strictly on the Bible and Reformed theology - to replace the Book of Common Prayer from 1559. Elizabeth took decisive action by imprisoning the responsible MPs and removing them from office. In addtion she instructed Archbishop, John Whitgift, to establish the Court of High Commission.
In contrast, the Separatists were considered religious dissenters. Unlike the Puritans they sought reforms beyond what the Anglican Church offered, even advocating for a separation between Church and State. In 1593, two Separatists, John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe, were executed.
Henry VIII, while officially styled as the Supreme Head of the Church of England, ecountered theological complexities. When individuals took the Oath of Supremacy they referred to him as the Supreme Governor to avoid controversy. This cautious terminology arose as Christ was regarded as the true Supreme Head of the Church. It’s important to note that Henry’s definition of loyalty was twofold; firstly, allegiance to the Crown, which required all subjects, including clergy, to recognize him as the Church’s Head; secondly, he mandated attendance at mass. All those who resisted to do either one of these or both faced severe punishment.
Elizabeth I, on the other hand, held the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The bishops in the Upper House of Convocation argued that according to St. Peter’s teachings, a woman could not hold the highest authority over the Church. Elizabeth accepted this title, recognizing the delicate balance between religious and political considerations.
Masme, in your work you say that Elizabeth gave financial support to the Dutch rebels in the Netherlands on a minimalist basis and that she got Brielle and Enkhuizen as collatoral. So, was this a loan?
No, this did not constitute a conventional loan with typical financial transactions and repayment terms. Queen Elizabeth’s support went far beyond mere financial assistance. On August 10, 1585, she and The Council of State, the rebel government, composed of English officials, entered into The Treaty of Nonsuch. As a result, 7,400 troops were dispatched to the Netherlands, under the leadership of Robert (Robin) Dudley, also known as the Earl of Leicester. The Treaty of Nonsuch established a strategic alliance against their common adversary, Spain, which both England and the Netherlands faced. Interestingly, when the Dutch offered Elizabeth the opportunity to become Queen of the Low Countries, should they emerge victorious in the war, she declined. The collateral provided by Brielle (Den Briel) and Enkhuizen served as a symbolic representation of the geopolitical partnership between the English and the Dutch.
Treaty of Nonsuch? It was signed at Nonsuch Palace.
Wauw, well, my following question is: Some Oxfordians question Henry VII’s legitimacy. What do you think would happen if the courts in Britain would allow them to do so?
Historians widely acknowlegde the legitimacy of the Tudors, making it challenging to dispute their claims to the English throne. Even legal authorities may defer to historical consensus, unless new evidence arises. To date, no one has presented compelling evidence or arguments to question the Tudors’ legitimacy. My perspective aligns with that of historians and I refrain from making any predictions on such matters.
Siohbahn, I merely stated very firmly that I refrain from any predictions on such matters. That doesn’t mean that I was harsh. If you’ve perceived my statement that way, allow me to make something clear; history is a science and therefore being correct is not the same as harsness. And yes, as I’ve told you from the beginning, you may ask as many questions as you like.
Well, actually I became interested in the Tudor Era when I was a child. I think I was 5 or 6 years old and I remember watching a black-and-white film, titled: ‘Fire over England’ (1937) in which Elizabeth I was portrayed by Flora Robson. However, it wasn’t until very much later, that I was actually fascinated with her (Elizabeth I, not Flora Robson) and the rest of the Tudors, although I had been studying the subject in encyclopedias and history books, especially, texts of Dr. John Guy which are extremely well written, all the more so, because there’s a sense of humour in them. Studying the Tudor Era - not only the monarchs, but also the economy, social and cultural life at the time of the Tudors - has become a passion. I’m very happy you asked that question and as a little treat, the following clip. I hope you’ll enjoy it.
The Wars of the Roses, which unfolded between 1455 and 1487, were not a classic coup d’état. Instead they constituted a protracted armed conflict between two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet; the Houses of York and Lancaster. These civil wars revolved around the struggle for control of the English throne. Since the male line of the Lancastrians became extinct in1471, Henry VII’s claims to the throne are considered to be rather weak, because his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a descendant of Edward III.
The House of Lancaster, symbolized by the red rose, and the House of York, symbolized by the white rose, clashed in a series of battles.
One pivotal battle took place on Ambion Hill in Leicestershire. The prevailing mentality was succinctly captured: ‘He who lost the day, lost the kingdom also.’ Richard III, a Yorkist king, faced defeat on August 22, 1485, resulting in the end of both his reign and the Platagenet dynasty.
The Wars of the Roses had deep-rooted causes, including socio-economic challenges following the Hundred Years’ War and structural issues related to bastard feudalism. These wars marked a signifcant turning point in English history, leading to the establishment of the Tudor dynasty and the dawn of the English Renaissance.
So, if it was not a classic coup d’état, it certainly can be seen as a military coup.
I think that ‘Elizabeth R’ (1971), starring Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth, and ‘The Six Wives of Henry VIII’ (1971), starring Keith Michell as the Great Henry are two of the best TV-series ever made.
