In a private letter, Elizabeth wrote, "There is but one Jesus Christ. The rest is a dispute over trifles." I think this probably sums up her faith as well as any statement does. She was a highly intelligent woman, with great diplomatic skills, and when she was younger, a keen judge of character. Her ability to read a situation would have almost certainly led her to the conclusion that England was a better place without the religious strife, Catholic or Protestant. It was more profitable. So I think yes, she was eager to find a "middle way" in religious matters. So, that was her aim: find a way to keep both sides of the fence happy -- or at least satisfied enough to stay reasonably peaceful. If Spain had not been so aggressive, this might have held until late in her reign. But they couldn't stand the thought of a Protestant England thriving. So there you go.
I agree. I also think, however, that as time went on, more and more of the English became protestant. That was just the direction the country's culture moved in. Which meant that her behavior went more and more that direction too. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation. Her laws were basically protestant, which led the country to become more protestant, which allowed her laws to become even more protestant, and so forth.
Amy, you and I are in agreement. I didn’t have that choice quotation at the tip of my tongue, as it were-but it underscores my point. “A dispute over trifles”-the words of a pragmatist, not a theologian.
The deaths under her regime make her just the same as her siblings or father. She was not tolerant. Imagine someone telling you you had to go to church or pay a fine? Consider the impact that had on impressionable children when the Vicar says one thing is moral and your parents say another? Its indoctrination
I think, honestly, it's a bit of both. Elizabeth strikes me as someone who didn't care so much about which god you followed so long as you followed her. She'd seen her siblings and her father get in trouble because of being too extreme with their faith. It's only when that idiotic papal bull came into place that she really had to go after the Catholics, and William of Orange's assassination was said to really have shook her (understandably! I think it was one of the first with a gun?). I don't think she was being middle of the road out of sentiment so much as pragmatism, and that's fair.
My daughter is dyslexic, she had a music teacher that attended a seminar on teaching dyslexic children so she would know how to best teach her. (Yes, she was Utah’s teacher of the year.) She learned many dyslexic students respond well to having certain color of a transparent sheet placed over whatever they are reading. For my daughter, it was a shade of light blue. She said it made the letters and notes jump and rearrange. Although she didn’t need glasses, we had a pair of non corrective glasses made with lenses the same shade blue as the transparency. It was life changing for her. I’m not certain if this would help anyone reading this, but thought I’d share our experience. It may be worth a trip to an office supply store and experiment with various shades of colored transparency sheets over a page in a book. I had never heard of this prior to her teacher attending the seminar, nor have I since our experiment with my daughter, but like I said, it changed her life and school experience. Very interesting and informative episode as always. ❤
In light of the bloodshed, beheadings and burnings at the stake during the previous Tudor reigns, it is not entirely surprising that Elizabeth started her own reign wanting to avoid looking into men's souls.
I think Elizabeth probably did want to find a middle way, but she also really did want the heads of ALL households to attend the parish church once a week, because she made it the centre of local administration for all sorts of different matters: her new poor law, the maintenance of the roads, the management of wandering pigs etc. etc. And for centuries after, the people to manage those matters were elected on a parish basis, even if they were non-conformists and wouldn't otherwise have attended the parish church - so that monthly attendance mattered. She also didn't have any other means of disseminating notices, new laws etc. to the general populace other than from the pulpit of the parish church - the idea of a 'public broadcast' was a long way in the future! So I think she wanted the Church to present itself as a minimum of acceptability to all, and she was much less bothered, if, having turned up for the parish church on Sunday morning, the Catholics and more extreme protestants had their own gatherings elsewhere in the afternoon. However, I think as time went on, she became convinced that her high ideals for peace on the subject of religious preference were simply impractical. It is an astonishing thing though, that in time, her original thinking came to be the way it would be - she had the right of it, she was simply ahead of her time.
The changing poor law over the centuries plays a large part of my own subject area, which led me, somewhat perforce, into Elizabeth's civil administration.
I've always believed that Elizabeth wanted to find a middle way. But the radical Catholics were their own worst enemies and forced her to clamp down on them.
@@briandelaney9710 I have to disagree with this statement. Elizabeth’s main concern was always political- that is whether or not people accepted her as sovereign of the state. Yes, this did include her as being the governor of the church but the state would have come first-for Elizabeth.
I think Elizabeth intended the middle path but the Pope made it impossible. Walsingham was a radical Protestant though and I don't think he ever liked or trusted Catholics so I think was looking for ways to undermine them. I do feel sorry for English catholics - divided loyalties are always hard but I blame the Pope for that.
I had honestly never asked myself « What if » the Spanish Armada had succeeded. The event is so enshrined as an almost miraculous moment in history , therefore a testament to the Idea that Elizabeth was a perfect ruler, it really does boggle the mind that this momentous event was the outcome of a terrible storm at sea! No one really does expect the Inquisition in England!
Same here! But it's so obvious now that Dr. Kat has said it, isn't it? I imagine that Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics has nothing on what the Spanish would have done, particularly to English rather than Spanish subjects
@@04nbod From Wikipedia: The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism or leave Castile, resulting in hundreds of thousands of forced conversions, the persecution of conversos and moriscos, and the mass expulsions of Jews and of Muslims from Spain.[
My Friday always gets a little bit better when there is an upload. Elizabeth would make the Perfect “Cafeteria Catholic “ Picking here and there, This Saint, This Ritual… Very Informative and Entertaining Thank You
I don't think I've ever commented on this channel, so I wanted to say that you do incredible work presenting your subjects, and your voice is very soothing.
This video is so thought-provoking, and I’m more convinced than ever that Elizabeth was a brilliant political animal who knew how to “read the room“ geopolitically, and position herself in a way that maintained autonomy from Rome and control over the English church and its influence. Her father did something similar, only way more tyrannical. Also: how awkward and terrifying must it have been for people of all denominations in the build up to the Armada, and especially for the Protestants…neighbors and families not knowing if/when the tide was going to turn and upend their whole world. They literally WERE expecting the Spanish Inquisition, which is a notoriously tall order, and arguably even more terrifying than being taken off guard 😬
I am convinced at the very least of this- Elizabeth was not at all interested in theology as such. A believing Christian? Of course: it would have been astonishing if she had not been. But her brother and sister both took a keen interest in the particulars of tradition vs reform in the Church, to the point of fanaticism. Elizabeth simply wasn’t interested in what she would have viewed as the details of the faith. Her surviving prayers are as much showpieces of her literary style (in multiple languages) as exhibitions of faith (although I don’t doubt that she was devout in her own way).
It's so funny: I'm reading The Sisters Who Would Be Queen about the Grey sisters (we've just gotten to the Wyatt rebellion) and I was just thinking about how Elizabeth struck a middle way between Edward and Mary's approaches... and then you uploaded this video today!
There's a Gresham College lecture that parallels this, dealing with the process by which England became Protestant. It attributes this very largely to the influence of 'Fox's Book of Martyrs', which apparently sold in very large numbers, and which detailed the fate of those burnt to death under Queen Mary. It's quite persuasive, although I wonder if levels of literacy were high enough to account for all of the movement away from Rome.
I think Elizabeth and her advisors did an excellent job finding compromising wording for her Act of Succession. By making the Queen the "Governor" rather than the "Head" of the church, she removed the critical/heretical problem for devout Catholics that had existed before. (Nowadays we don't understand how serious it would have been to swear that the monarch was head of the church. I am certain that it was an absolute anathema to many, to swear that Henry stood in lieu of the Pope.) In addition, the wording was vague enough to interpret the communion elements either as transubstantiated or not. In the Act of Uniformity, she again used equivocal language to assuage the consciences of devout Catholics while still upholding Protestantism, and returning some trappings of the old Mass to appeal to the more middle ground-minded (i.e., those who cared less about theology than beloved traditions). The political quamire remained, but in matters of conscience, I believe the average citizen would have been quite relieved by Elizabeth's attention to theological hair-splitting.
Great video! Thanks so much for delving into this. I remain fascinated by the topic of the personal faiths of the Tudor monarchs and the English people at this time. I think that by shifting the nature of the offense from "heresy" to "treason" there was at least an attempt made to remove the government from overt involvement in matters of personal faith. If peering into people's souls was not an appropriate government exercise, then securing the peace and stability of the realm certainly was. It's not so much a "middle way" as it is a reframing of the discussion.
I have similar issues with my dyslexia. Bright white paper really affects me. I’ve found cream paper with dark brown text works best, but I doubt any publisher would be interested in that combination! 😂
@@Rose-jz6ix I’ve tried various filters, different colours work for different people. You can usually buy them in mixed packs to see which works best for you. They’re good because you can cut them to different sizes to suit different sized books.
Great video! Off topic a bit, but I took Henry through the Hare’s psychopathy checklist for fun and dear god 😮 Then I thought well, how much of this is just what he developed in order to be a successful king? Then I thought no, he was a terrible person. I love him and I hate him.
I was going to watch this live but as usual life intervened. This aspect of Elizabeth 1st really interests me. I think she did have a personal belief in God. I suspect as an entity that was protecting her from extraordinary dangers and by as much as anything giving her the gift of shrewd intelligence. I think she kept HER personal idea of God well hidden and wished other people would do the same. I do honestly believe she didn't care what other people thought and didn't want to know. As someone ,myself,who finds narccistic and unnecessary self brought on Martyrdom tiresome and even offensive I feel that she was similar. I think she got more hardline,or rather facilitated her secret service to be so when there was a real danger of her being assassinated and "regime change" happening. I expect that would have led to terrible bloodshed. I do think most of those brave Catholic priests were doing it for truly spiritual reasons,but they were a destabilizing influence. So they couldn't be ignored. As you are the Historian I could be wrong in this but I read a few months ago that in the long medieval era most ordinary people,ie serfs,day labourers,workers in the land were only expected to attend church twice a year,at Easter and Christmas. That was enough. Having regular church attendance was a social mobility thing. If you were rich you had a private chapel and if you were a middle class tradesman on the up you supported your local parish church and may have gone more often but the "ordinary " people didn't have to show up. So it seems that our idea of going to church every Sunday started in Elizabeth's reign,partly it seems to me as a method of social surveillance but also as another poster says because the parish was becoming the main source of "social welfare and support". If I can mention another historian - there is a lovely,indeed beautiful tv doc by Lucy Worsley about Evensong. About how Elizabeth inherited her father's love of music so she saved the State Religion from being the dour and joyless one the extreme Puritans wanted. Sorry Puritans you are good ethical people but you're NO FUN! So thanks to Elizabeth we have centuries of beautiful and calm music,like stained glass for the soul. Very interesting topic Dr Kat.
Everytime I watch your videos, I admire your bookshelf. Would love to know your favorite books about History in general or the Tudors 🙏💛 love your videos
That is one of the most useful ad breaks. I’m not dyslexic but I have a few children of friends who are. I’d love to see how they’d do with those lamps.
I know this is a year on but... I'm responding to your advert about the lighting you need. Being a 50 inveterate needlewoman, light matters. Embroidery especially demands ample direct light as well as magnification. Most people don't even see the detail I put into some of my work but it still adds to the richness and overall enhanced appearance. I also design knitted garments of all types which requires yet another kind of light- diffused sunlight-type is best. I therefore have two of these very lamps set at different angles, one on either side of my work area, using the suffused yellow light mimicking the sun. I'm not dyslexic but having also worked as an RN for 45 years, I've worked with many people who have only lately been discovered as dyslexic. I can only imagine the difficulty of being told as a child that you're "slow" or "inattentive" or the worst, "underachiever". Lighting helps. So does patience and perseverance. As the Aussies would say, "Good on ya Dr. Kat".
Elizabeth did tolerate Catholics among the high nobility and left Catholic "Marian Priests" largely alone. These were country priests, largely in the west, who did not serve the gentry but local farmers and merchants, and made no moves to conspire against Elizabeth.
I love this channel and have watched it every Friday since I found out about it. But there is another channel called 'Scotland History Tours' that is about as different in some ways as this channel can be. It's funny, the episodes are fairly short, but it's packed with Scottish history. To see another perspective on Mary Queen Scots go to Scotland History Tours and watch these 5 episodes. They weren't done in order, or even the same years but you'll be glad you did: 1. Mary Queen of Scots Worst Week Ever, 2. Mary Queen of Scots in Prison, 3. Mary Queen of Scots Last Week in Scotland-The Battle of Langside, 4. Mary Queen of Scots last week in Scotland, and 5. When Mary Queen of Scots Realized She Was in an English Prison.
I have a textbook, published in 1973 in Kansas by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, Kansas. titled " The Church Teaches" . " Documents of the Church in English translation." It is for the use of trainee R. C. Priests in America. Each chapter deals with a separate topic and has every Bull issued by a Pope & dated, on it. Eg. The church, the Pope, Mary etc. Every Bull declares, " that anyone denying the claims made, " let them be anathama" ( cursed.)" Since no Bull can ever be changed or denied by future Popes, anyone who believes otherwise is cursed. This shows how intractable were those opposing any King, Queen or commoner who thought otherwise. ( I came by the book as it was donated to a Book Sale in my Town by the local Priest. As a bookworm I thought it looked interesting and kept it.) So I think Elizabeth was in a no-win situation if she tried to accommodate those who disagreed with her reign.
Dr. Kat I love your podcasts! I am a big fan of British history. I was wondering maybe if you could ever have a show about wether, Queen Elizabeth I was truly a virgin? I would find that fascinating. Thanks again for your fantastic podcast.
In Clare in Ireland when Catholic land owners rebelled against Elizabeth they had their lands confiscated. BUT Elizabeth's courts awarded their estates to the nearest relatibe witha good claim, mostly Catholic, as long as they swore allegiance to Elizabeth.
I tuned in as the channel was recommended. And found the light I have been seeking. My French Artemide Tizios have died one by one and I wanted something with more natural light. And.. Good video! (now subscribed)
Fascinating as always. I do find myself biased on behalf of Elizabeth just because I like her. I'm also a pragmatist and think it would have been foolish not to have the competition done away with. That's what they did back then, and if I was a commoner back in yonder times I wouldn't have cared much who at the top had to lose their heads to ensure stability and peace for the country.
If not dyslexic then vision therapy ? When my daughter was young I managed to teach her to read but it was very hard for her Multiple checking sessions for dyslexia were negative Here in California there is a specialty for optometrists called vision therapy It’s a real medical deal not hokey Over one summer my daughter and I worked with the therapist to retrain muscle in her eyes She could then read properly 20 years later she still can and goes in yearly for testing May be something for others to try
Hello dr kat been very busy with house but still catching videos in the evening with saddle dog next to me she turns 1 tomorrow and I am not ready for her to turn 1 it is amazing how fast she is growing still waiting on a niece to get my phone hooked up on RUclips I have to use a different app to get on RUclips hoping to catch a live so and be able to be in chats as well don’t worry I am still a loyal reader dr kat ps saddle dog says hello as well hello from Charlie the Guinea pigs sadly passed away about a month ago today still dealing with that loss yet
1st I do enjoy your program. In my opinion, I believe that Queen Elizabeth did want to let her people worship the way each wanted but when it came to her life being threatened she had to protect herself
I just watched a RUclips video, “Catherine De Medici: The Black Queen of France” by the People Profile, She also started her time in France as supporting the middle road. However, it didn’t stop St Bart’s massacre. At that time, she became very Catholic.
I often like to draw parallels between the past and the present, and I would see such a parallel (however imperfect) between the concern over Catholic 'terrorism' in the 16 and 17th century and Muslim 'terrorism' in modern times. Then as now, I am sure that many Catholics, and now most Muslims, just want to get on with life and avoid too much involvement in politics, much less with violent politics. The Papal decrees in the 16th century can be seen as comparable to some of the fatwas given by some Muslim clerics at various times. The English support for the Dutch revolutionaries in the 16th century can also be compared with some more recent British (and other Western powers) imprudent involvement in various wars and support for some insurgent groups in the Middle East.
Conflicts in religious differences can often be seen in terms of Theology/Liturgy; that is, what to believe/how to worship. Of course, each element will influence the other, and the 2 may sometimes seem too intertwined to examine separately.
I think Elizabeth would have preferred to just let matters lie as she had declared from the beginning of her reign but the Catholics and the Pope kept interfering so she had to react or risk being seen as weak or later, being assassinated. I like to think she thought of herself as Queen of all her subjects and wished that trouble would not rear it’s ugly head. However, being a strong monarch, she regrettably was forced into defending herself and her authority.
It’s interesting how Elizabeth’s reign and religion is treated in general studies. So many sources act like once Elizabeth implemented “the middle way”, there was no real dissent until those rowdy puritans came along. Clearly that’s not the case!
What's sad is King Henry wife Jane Semore was a Catholic. Even though she hid it from king Henry. Jane had received queen Catherine cross necklace. I think people forgot about that. I wonder why no one told king Edward the 6th that his mom was a Catholic.
@@04nbod Respectfully I feel I must disagree. Yes, he was young, but he was assuredly no milk and water prince. As he grew older, his ideas on proper worship and ornamentation in church became more definite and defined and he took great pains to try and ensure that the ground gained by Protestantism in Britain should not be lost. He felt confident enough to argue with Mary, whom he loved, until both sides retired in tears. His Councillors could not have pushed his Great Matter, disinheriting both his half sisters in favor of Jane Grey if he hadn't agreed, at least in part.
@@Chrisiant He was educated by religious radicals so what do you expect to pop out the other side of that? Similarly Mary was raised Catholic and that informed her worldview. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Similarly, how did James I. The son of a devout Catholic end up Protestant? (although his family largely reverted in later generations after escaping to France in the Civil War)
I know I'm late to the conversation but I don't think Elizabeth really cared that much about religion. I think she cared only to the extent that it suited her means. I think she saw what happened when a ruler went to extremes with religion with both Edward and Mary and she wasn't going to follow down the same road, if she could help it. Besides the fact that she was too intelligent to let something like religion endanger her reign. It took her too long to get there and she was definitely not going to let anything keep her from ruling her country, if she could help it!
The true benefit on Natural Daylight Wavelength Balanced Light is to combat winter depression in the northern latitudes. If only Scrooge had one of these. ❤
In my opinion, Elizabeth tried to do what the pope should have done: allowing people to breathe. As long as they would not endanger her life and her government, she practiced tolerance. Remember, she knew Phillip II personally, and had witnessed the harm that the inquisition had done to the people. If we look at the damage the Inquisition had done to Spain, where even high clergy (Isabella of Castilles personal chaplain) or saintly people (like ignatius of Loyola) were not safe from prosecution, Elizabeth´s reign appears generous and considerate by comparison. The fact that the gentry remained in the catholic faith much longer, is certainly a consequence of the heavy fines. Only rich people could afford that.
A living descendant of Thomas Blagrave. Who was Elizabeth I Master of Revels for a time. I would love to hear some about he, and Shakespeare if you have access to information, or resources that aren't overt.
I think Elizabeth honestly wanted to find an agreeable middle ground. If Mary had been willing/ able to say that she didn’t want Elizabeth’s thrown and that she wasn’t a threat to her cousin then she probably would have lived. Elizabeth was protecting her life and thrown. I don’t think that Elizabeth wanted Mary dead, but finally had to agree that her cousin had made herself a threat.
I suspect that both on a personal level and in keeping with her effort to quelle the religious controversies of her father and siblings, Elizabeth was probably being sincere in her desire "not to pry into men's souls." However, through his papal bull of 1570, Pius V made this impossible. The papal bull amounted to a "fatwa" of sorts, in which the pope declared war on the English monarchy. It was a stupid move on his part, but Elizabeth and her ministers recognized the danger. I don't like the actions that she took against Roman Catholics in England, but in the context of the time she may have believed they were the only choice.
Love your videos. The ones on religion always make me ponder atheism (as an athiest). Would it even be possible for someone like Elizabeth to be an athiest? Or even a commoner at that time? Was it a concept?
Aprapo of all these schemes, I really enjoyed The Serpent Queen which is about Catherine de Medici. MQOS portrayal in that is very different from how I've usually seen her portrayed (i.e. not so much heroic and defiant as stubborn and controlling and a bit thick...)
Elizabeth I in regard to religion is a very interesting topic. As a devout Roman Catholic myself, I would like to give input. By the end of Mary I's reign, Catholicism had indisputably became the religion of the majority folk in England, practiced by many powerful wealthy elites as well. Elizabeth's settlement was, I would say, unnecessary. Before I say some more, I would like to assert that I certainly do not subscribe to the modern thought that Elizabeth didn't really care for which religion or denomination you followed, so long as you obeyed her. She was a committed Protestant, and she wanted England to be the same. Within less than a year after Mary's death, yet another sweeping religious change had occurred. With the reintroduction of the Oath of Supremacy, Catholics were inevitably forced to deny their faith. From the Catholic perspective, the Church is established by Jesus Christ, who gave Peter, the first Pope, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, titling him "The Rock", the feeder of the sheep, the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And this divine authority is passed through unbroken succession From Peter, to Linus, to Anacletus, to Clement, and so on with 262 successors. From the Elizabethan Reformationist point of view, This idea of Roman governance and authority over the church (which they perceived to be usurped) had to be overthrown by royal authority in the person of Elizabeth. So Catholics were forced to deny one of the most important aspects of their faith and refusal to sign on to it became treason in 1562. Also the Elizabethan Settlement was emphatically Anti-Catholic. Transubstantiation, the Catholic doctrine that the substance of bread and wine is transformed into the very Body and Blood of Christ was declared to be superstitious and utterly false. The number of Sacraments was reduced to 2 in contrast with the 7 of the Catholic Church. The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was emphatically rejected, and Catholic devotional practices such as venerating relics and invoking the saints were also declared idolatrous and superstitious. To be a Catholic, in Elizabethan England, was to be a traitor, to even be caught with a small devotional item with you, you could be thrown in prison, such was the case with Cuthbert Mayne when he was caught with an Agnus Dei around his neck. Imagine the authorities raiding your house because they suspect you are hiding priests, oh yeah the celebration of Catholic Masses had been illegal since the Act of Uniformity in 1559. I would have to hand it to the Elizabethan Government though, their strategy in their massive attempt to eradicate and permanently extinguish the Catholic faith was successful, mainly in their harsh and merciless repression of Catholic priests. Because, well, no priests, no sacrament. No priest, no Mass, no confession, you get the idea... Reading about people like Edmund Gennings, Edmund Campion, Margaret Clitherow, and James Thompson, you really get an idea of the sheer ruthlessness, savageness, and dare I say sadistic nature of the Elizabethan Persecution. But anyhow I have been writing this for a while now, I would be interested to hear your thoughts or anybody else's. Pax.
I recommend this: The Puritans and Music in England and New England: A Contribution to the Cultural History of the Two Nations by Percy A. Scholes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934). Scholes (1877-1958) will give you a fair history of music as it relates to the Puritans. This book, by the way, was one of the first to start to clear away the unfair and misleading caricatures regarding the Puritans.
I think you glossed over the fact that Elizabeth basically imprisoned Mary unlawfully, so who can blame her for trying to escape. At the end of the day, Catholics in England and and Scotland got the short end of the stick all the way to the present day.
When I think of Mary I and her attempts to conceive, I often wonder if one of her siblings may have uttered a curse upon her not unlike the very curse King Lear calls down upon his daughter Goneril, "Hear, Nature, hear, dear goddess, hear! Suspend thy purpose if thou didst intend To make this creature fruitful. Into her womb convey sterility. Dry up in her the organs of increase, And from her derogate body never spring A babe to honour her!"
If someone asks you what your religion is, and you know that priests are being hunted and killed and people associated with them are being killed. What do you say?
As I listen to your detailed explanations I’m struck by how over simplified and downright misleading my school history was. I learned English history in Australia.
Well I thought my friends from NZ & Austraila were better educated than here in the states. I think basically they sweep stuff under the rug because the gov doesn't want to deal w/ things they don't want to take responsabilty for. Herethe gov always said one thing did another w/ ingenious people who lived here first. Am guessingsame is true down & in South Africa.
We started in 1066, touched on the Magna Carta, jumped to the War of the Roses, Henry VIII through to Elizabeth I - who I learned “brought freedom to choose to be Catholic or CofE” (!!!!!) and then jumped to WWI with the briefest passing mention of the Plague and the Fire of London (that “ended the Black Death”) on the way. Even Victoria was passed with the briefest mention. Apparently they thought studying any Dickens in English class was sufficient.
@@RobynCoburn my 🇦🇺 history lessons covered a little of most countries, but not old enough for my interest. Dr Kat has interested my mind with more modern history. I wanted to understand the beginning of this planet & its many changes.
Maybe she wasn’t a believer at all and was doing what she thought was best for the country. Given what she had seen throughout her life because of religion nobody could blame her for being a non-believer surely?
Fantastic video. Thank you. I did think though that Jane’s reign was actually 13 days and not the common misconception of 9 days. Do you say 9 days as that’s what most think?
Technically Jane's reign commenced on the death of Edward VI but it was a few days later when the official proclamation was performed. Just like the process King Charles III recently undertook. Hence 12 days reign but 9 days after proclamation before Mary I rode into town & seized the throne.
As a fellow dyslexic, I am beginning to think that dyslexia is peculiarly idiosyncratic. I not only have dyslexia but astygmaticsm, and eye strain is a constant threat. I found that writing on black paper with a white pen made the letters wiggle less, and shine from the page was eliminated. Your mileage, of course, may vary. However, may I ask a question? Just finished Hayley Nolan's "500 Years Of Lies" about Anne Boylen. Now I am curious..was Anne Boylen an evangelical reformer, rather than a slinky seductress? Was Henry VIII a psychopath, who discarded or destroyed his wives if they disappointed him?
It is unfortunate, but nothing, and I mean nothing, has caused more misery, death, and destruction than religion - either in forcing religious views on others, or exploiting religion for gain. The crusades, the Saxon Wars, and many other examples exist throughout history show that religion has been the core of much change and damage. I can’t help wonder how different history would have been if Catherine of Aragon had produced a son that lived. Ann Boleyn for that matter as well…
Why did they overturn Edward's succession decision and go back to Henry VIIIs when Edward was the anointed King and his decision should have been the final one over a dead king's?
It was a very popular Catholic uprising that began in Northern England made up of the common people who protested the Dissolution of the Monasteries. They wanted to be peaceful...at first, but it soon became violent due to King Henry's regime doing everything they could to stamp out this rebellion.
For those that were in the "americas" before, the reformation and the events after had devastating results. The original inhabitants were decimated in " the name of god".
@@swearenginlawanda true & it wasn't until i did my family geneolgy did I realize how much we the new inhabinets of the Americas brought over the bad habits of our ancestors. Thx Dr Kat didn't mention the rest of Europe but they had their own regious issues w/ old vs new. I had no idea how much the French, German, Dutch, Scandenavia had dealt w/ same issues. Then find out about long standing issues of the Jewish that were all over Europe & parts east of Europe.
I recently listened to "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty." The author thought Elizabeth seemed to vacillate between Catholicism and Protestantism because she was was always doing whatever she thought would keep her safe at the time.
Elizabeth I's middle way was not a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism, Under Elizabeth, the 39 Articles were ratified which clearly repudiated the Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and papal supremacy. Rather, Elizabeth's middle way should be conceptualized as a broad middle way within Protestantism, in appealing both to Puritans who wanted to push the CofE even further to the continental Reformers and to 'high church Protestants', who rejected the doctrines of Roman Catholicism while still open to retaining some traditions from the post Biblical heritage of Christianity.
I believe Henry an Elizabeth thought that each country would have a state church run by a king. Serfdom had collapsed and a need for a more educated populace was needed. The counter reformation was run by Ignatius of Loyola. He founded the jesuits the biggest order of the catholic church. They built schools. Ignatius was born around the same time as Henry viii. South Amerca went catholic with our lady of guadalupe December 1531. earlier that year Henry declared himself head of the English church. Imo that was the beginning if the end of monarchy.
Dr Kat, I was wondering if you might consider this for a future video topic: Recently, I have been in a fair few credible and academic settings that have denounced William Shakespeare as a person who even existed, let alone one entity who wrote plays. The conspiracy holds that “William Shakespeare was a pen name” or “William Shakespeare was a noble who was able to take credit for other playwrights’ work.” This seems to be a more recent theory, and I’m not sure this is as widespread a belief as I have been lead to believe. Is it possible to go into the details of his life/family history to either confirm or deny this rumor? If you have a video similar to this I apologize and I am sure I will find it as I’ve been steadily going through your library. I also don’t blame you if this is just one of many internet age conspiracies that people senior to me had been lead to believe. Thank you for all the time your take to share with us all the things you do, you’ve reminded me how much I love research and I’m a big fan :)
In recent years, knowledge about William Shakespeare has grown exponentially. Dr. Kat has discussed quite a bit of it. And, the footnotes of Shakespeare's Wiki page can take you to much more. It would be interesting, however, to look at conspiracies of all kinds from a historical perspective.
An idea for a video: Comparing the legacy of Queen Mary I to her half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I. Specifically comparing the way that Mary treated protestants to the way that Elizabeth treated catholics.
That was a pretty standard old Whig interpretation of history. Bad Spaniards. Good Protestant Elizabethans. Historical research has gone beyond that in the last 40 years
I remember Simon Schama saying that even as a Jewish boy he learned the Protestant version of the reformation (specifically that Catholicism was a dying religion before the reformation) and it wasn't until university he realised it wasn't true. BBC documentaries on the subject are shockingly partisan. Even the word 'reformation' suggests it was necessary and good.
During the long reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558-1603), 189 men and women were put to death for their Roman Catholic faith, or (as the regime would have it) for its treasonable implications. In a way, the rebels of the Prayer Book died because of their Roman Catholic faith under Edward VI. Around 900 prisoners were massacred by Lord Russell's troops after the Battle of Clyst St Mary to stop them escaping and rejoining the enemy. During the reign of Henry VIII, some 50 heretics had been burned at the stake, while in its last 15 years, 69 Roman Catholics had been executed. Mary I was the worst, but she wasn't the only Tudor who did so.
For more information on the Serious Readers range and to purchase your own light, check out: try.seriousreaders.com/pages/rtp22/
Did Henry VIII really kill Anne Bolen's little dog? Because I just saw that somewhere else and it's heartbreaking.
I think that Elizabeth I learned very young to not be divisive unless she had to be, for her own safety.
In a private letter, Elizabeth wrote, "There is but one Jesus Christ. The rest is a dispute over trifles." I think this probably sums up her faith as well as any statement does. She was a highly intelligent woman, with great diplomatic skills, and when she was younger, a keen judge of character. Her ability to read a situation would have almost certainly led her to the conclusion that England was a better place without the religious strife, Catholic or Protestant. It was more profitable. So I think yes, she was eager to find a "middle way" in religious matters. So, that was her aim: find a way to keep both sides of the fence happy -- or at least satisfied enough to stay reasonably peaceful. If Spain had not been so aggressive, this might have held until late in her reign. But they couldn't stand the thought of a Protestant England thriving. So there you go.
I agree. I also think, however, that as time went on, more and more of the English became protestant. That was just the direction the country's culture moved in. Which meant that her behavior went more and more that direction too. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation. Her laws were basically protestant, which led the country to become more protestant, which allowed her laws to become even more protestant, and so forth.
Amy, you and I are in agreement. I didn’t have that choice quotation at the tip of my tongue, as it were-but it underscores my point. “A dispute over trifles”-the words of a pragmatist, not a theologian.
That was very well said!!!
The deaths under her regime make her just the same as her siblings or father. She was not tolerant. Imagine someone telling you you had to go to church or pay a fine? Consider the impact that had on impressionable children when the Vicar says one thing is moral and your parents say another? Its indoctrination
@@OR10777BE Bravo 👏!
Elizabeth and Edward was probably closest thing that Mary had to children given the difference in their ages.
I think, honestly, it's a bit of both. Elizabeth strikes me as someone who didn't care so much about which god you followed so long as you followed her. She'd seen her siblings and her father get in trouble because of being too extreme with their faith. It's only when that idiotic papal bull came into place that she really had to go after the Catholics, and William of Orange's assassination was said to really have shook her (understandably! I think it was one of the first with a gun?). I don't think she was being middle of the road out of sentiment so much as pragmatism, and that's fair.
My daughter is dyslexic, she had a music teacher that attended a seminar on teaching dyslexic children so she would know how to best teach her. (Yes, she was Utah’s teacher of the year.) She learned many dyslexic students respond well to having certain color of a transparent sheet placed over whatever they are reading. For my daughter, it was a shade of light blue. She said it made the letters and notes jump and rearrange. Although she didn’t need glasses, we had a pair of non corrective glasses made with lenses the same shade blue as the transparency. It was life changing for her. I’m not certain if this would help anyone reading this, but thought I’d share our experience. It may be worth a trip to an office supply store and experiment with various shades of colored transparency sheets over a page in a book. I had never heard of this prior to her teacher attending the seminar, nor have I since our experiment with my daughter, but like I said, it changed her life and school experience.
Very interesting and informative episode as always. ❤
How cool! When I look at a bunch of numbers, they move around on the page and switch places.
This reading strategy has been around for decades.
Reading specialists in schools have a lot of tricks up their sleeves to diagnose and help kids.
In light of the bloodshed, beheadings and burnings at the stake during the previous Tudor reigns, it is not entirely surprising that Elizabeth started her own reign wanting to avoid looking into men's souls.
I think Elizabeth probably did want to find a middle way, but she also really did want the heads of ALL households to attend the parish church once a week, because she made it the centre of local administration for all sorts of different matters: her new poor law, the maintenance of the roads, the management of wandering pigs etc. etc. And for centuries after, the people to manage those matters were elected on a parish basis, even if they were non-conformists and wouldn't otherwise have attended the parish church - so that monthly attendance mattered. She also didn't have any other means of disseminating notices, new laws etc. to the general populace other than from the pulpit of the parish church - the idea of a 'public broadcast' was a long way in the future! So I think she wanted the Church to present itself as a minimum of acceptability to all, and she was much less bothered, if, having turned up for the parish church on Sunday morning, the Catholics and more extreme protestants had their own gatherings elsewhere in the afternoon. However, I think as time went on, she became convinced that her high ideals for peace on the subject of religious preference were simply impractical. It is an astonishing thing though, that in time, her original thinking came to be the way it would be - she had the right of it, she was simply ahead of her time.
The changing poor law over the centuries plays a large part of my own subject area, which led me, somewhat perforce, into Elizabeth's civil administration.
Well stated. I like how you encapsulate her era and the years after her reign so nicely.
I've always believed that Elizabeth wanted to find a middle way. But the radical Catholics were their own worst enemies and forced her to clamp down on them.
She would never have accepted Catholics who would not see her as “Supreme Governor “
@@briandelaney9710 I have to disagree with this statement. Elizabeth’s main concern was always political- that is whether or not people accepted her as sovereign of the state. Yes, this did include her as being the governor of the church but the state would have come first-for Elizabeth.
I think Elizabeth intended the middle path but the Pope made it impossible. Walsingham was a radical Protestant though and I don't think he ever liked or trusted Catholics so I think was looking for ways to undermine them. I do feel sorry for English catholics - divided loyalties are always hard but I blame the Pope for that.
@@amandagrayson389 she expected subjects to obey and that included the religious settlement
I think
People of the 21st century tend to look at Elizabeth as if she was some modern day liberal. She was definitely not that
I had honestly never asked myself « What if » the Spanish Armada had succeeded. The event is so enshrined as an almost miraculous moment in history , therefore a testament to the Idea that Elizabeth was a perfect ruler, it really does boggle the mind that this momentous event was the outcome of a terrible storm at sea! No one really does expect the Inquisition in England!
Same here! But it's so obvious now that Dr. Kat has said it, isn't it? I imagine that Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics has nothing on what the Spanish would have done, particularly to English rather than Spanish subjects
Harry Turtledove, a sci-fi writer and master of alternative history, who wrote a book on a successful Spanish Armada called Ruled Britannia.
The inquisition was mainly about Muslims still existing in Spain after the reconquest.
@@04nbod From Wikipedia: The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism or leave Castile, resulting in hundreds of thousands of forced conversions, the persecution of conversos and moriscos, and the mass expulsions of Jews and of Muslims from Spain.[
Monty Python: No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!
My Friday always gets a little bit better when there is an upload.
Elizabeth would make the Perfect “Cafeteria Catholic “
Picking here and there, This Saint, This Ritual…
Very Informative and Entertaining
Thank You
I don't think I've ever commented on this channel, so I wanted to say that you do incredible work presenting your subjects, and your voice is very soothing.
😀I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one!
This video is so thought-provoking, and I’m more convinced than ever that Elizabeth was a brilliant political animal who knew how to “read the room“ geopolitically, and position herself in a way that maintained autonomy from Rome and control over the English church and its influence. Her father did something similar, only way more tyrannical. Also: how awkward and terrifying must it have been for people of all denominations in the build up to the Armada, and especially for the Protestants…neighbors and families not knowing if/when the tide was going to turn and upend their whole world. They literally WERE expecting the Spanish Inquisition, which is a notoriously tall order, and arguably even more terrifying than being taken off guard 😬
I am convinced at the very least of this- Elizabeth was not at all interested in theology as such. A believing Christian? Of course: it would have been astonishing if she had not been. But her brother and sister both took a keen interest in the particulars of tradition vs reform in the Church, to the point of fanaticism. Elizabeth simply wasn’t interested in what she would have viewed as the details of the faith. Her surviving prayers are as much showpieces of her literary style (in multiple languages) as exhibitions of faith (although I don’t doubt that she was devout in her own way).
It's so funny: I'm reading The Sisters Who Would Be Queen about the Grey sisters (we've just gotten to the Wyatt rebellion) and I was just thinking about how Elizabeth struck a middle way between Edward and Mary's approaches... and then you uploaded this video today!
There's a Gresham College lecture that parallels this, dealing with the process by which England became Protestant. It attributes this very largely to the influence of 'Fox's Book of Martyrs', which apparently sold in very large numbers, and which detailed the fate of those burnt to death under Queen Mary. It's quite persuasive, although I wonder if levels of literacy were high enough to account for all of the movement away from Rome.
I wonder if a different light would help dyscalculia...
I think Elizabeth and her advisors did an excellent job finding compromising wording for her Act of Succession. By making the Queen the "Governor" rather than the "Head" of the church, she removed the critical/heretical problem for devout Catholics that had existed before. (Nowadays we don't understand how serious it would have been to swear that the monarch was head of the church. I am certain that it was an absolute anathema to many, to swear that Henry stood in lieu of the Pope.) In addition, the wording was vague enough to interpret the communion elements either as transubstantiated or not. In the Act of Uniformity, she again used equivocal language to assuage the consciences of devout Catholics while still upholding Protestantism, and returning some trappings of the old Mass to appeal to the more middle ground-minded (i.e., those who cared less about theology than beloved traditions). The political quamire remained, but in matters of conscience, I believe the average citizen would have been quite relieved by Elizabeth's attention to theological hair-splitting.
Great video! Thanks so much for delving into this. I remain fascinated by the topic of the personal faiths of the Tudor monarchs and the English people at this time. I think that by shifting the nature of the offense from "heresy" to "treason" there was at least an attempt made to remove the government from overt involvement in matters of personal faith. If peering into people's souls was not an appropriate government exercise, then securing the peace and stability of the realm certainly was. It's not so much a "middle way" as it is a reframing of the discussion.
I have similar issues with my dyslexia. Bright white paper really affects me. I’ve found cream paper with dark brown text works best, but I doubt any publisher would be interested in that combination! 😂
But it would have a nice vintage touch to it
Sounds good to me
I didn't know that reading light affects dyslexic readers like that. I have dyslexia but in numbers/arithmetic form myself.
Another person mentioned different coloured see through paper, light blue in his daughter 's case. Have you tried this?
@@Rose-jz6ix I’ve tried various filters, different colours work for different people. You can usually buy them in mixed packs to see which works best for you. They’re good because you can cut them to different sizes to suit different sized books.
Great video! Off topic a bit, but I took Henry through the Hare’s psychopathy checklist for fun and dear god 😮 Then I thought well, how much of this is just what he developed in order to be a successful king? Then I thought no, he was a terrible person. I love him and I hate him.
I was going to watch this live but as usual life intervened. This aspect of Elizabeth 1st really interests me. I think she did have a personal belief in God. I suspect as an entity that was protecting her from extraordinary dangers and by as much as anything giving her the gift of shrewd intelligence. I think she kept HER personal idea of God well hidden and wished other people would do the same. I do honestly believe she didn't care what other people thought and didn't want to know. As someone ,myself,who finds narccistic and unnecessary self brought on Martyrdom tiresome and even offensive I feel that she was similar. I think she got more hardline,or rather facilitated her secret service to be so when there was a real danger of her being assassinated and "regime change" happening. I expect that would have led to terrible bloodshed. I do think most of those brave Catholic priests were doing it for truly spiritual reasons,but they were a destabilizing influence. So they couldn't be ignored. As you are the Historian I could be wrong in this but I read a few months ago that in the long medieval era most ordinary people,ie serfs,day labourers,workers in the land were only expected to attend church twice a year,at Easter and Christmas. That was enough. Having regular church attendance was a social mobility thing. If you were rich you had a private chapel and if you were a middle class tradesman on the up you supported your local parish church and may have gone more often but the "ordinary " people didn't have to show up. So it seems that our idea of going to church every Sunday started in Elizabeth's reign,partly it seems to me as a method of social surveillance but also as another poster says because the parish was becoming the main source of "social welfare and support". If I can mention another historian - there is a lovely,indeed beautiful tv doc by Lucy Worsley about Evensong. About how Elizabeth inherited her father's love of music so she saved the State Religion from being the dour and joyless one the extreme Puritans wanted. Sorry Puritans you are good ethical people but you're NO FUN! So thanks to Elizabeth we have centuries of beautiful and calm music,like stained glass for the soul. Very interesting topic Dr Kat.
Everytime I watch your videos, I admire your bookshelf. Would love to know your favorite books about History in general or the Tudors 🙏💛 love your videos
I love this video, thank you.
Thank you Dr. Kat. Another great job presenting.
That is one of the most useful ad breaks. I’m not dyslexic but I have a few children of friends who are. I’d love to see how they’d do with those lamps.
Brilliant as always, dear Dr. Kat. Thank you so much! 🙏🙋♀️
Another interesting & thought provoking video. Thank you❤
I know this is a year on but... I'm responding to your advert about the lighting you need. Being a 50 inveterate needlewoman, light matters. Embroidery especially demands ample direct light as well as magnification. Most people don't even see the detail I put into some of my work but it still adds to the richness and overall enhanced appearance. I also design knitted garments of all types which requires yet another kind of light- diffused sunlight-type is best. I therefore have two of these very lamps set at different angles, one on either side of my work area, using the suffused yellow light mimicking the sun. I'm not dyslexic but having also worked as an RN for 45 years, I've worked with many people who have only lately been discovered as dyslexic. I can only imagine the difficulty of being told as a child that you're "slow" or "inattentive" or the worst, "underachiever". Lighting helps. So does patience and perseverance. As the Aussies would say, "Good on ya Dr. Kat".
Elizabeth did tolerate Catholics among the high nobility and left Catholic "Marian Priests" largely alone. These were country priests, largely in the west, who did not serve the gentry but local farmers and merchants, and made no moves to conspire against Elizabeth.
Dear Dr Kat, I look forward to your content immensely. Do you offer tours of London at all? I'm certain you'd have a lot of interest.
I love this channel and have watched it every Friday since I found out about it. But there is another channel called 'Scotland History Tours' that is about as different in some ways as this channel can be. It's funny, the episodes are fairly short, but it's packed with Scottish history. To see another perspective on Mary Queen Scots go to Scotland History Tours and watch these 5 episodes. They weren't done in order, or even the same years but you'll be glad you did: 1. Mary Queen of Scots Worst Week Ever, 2. Mary Queen of Scots in Prison, 3. Mary Queen of Scots Last Week in Scotland-The Battle of Langside, 4. Mary Queen of Scots last week in Scotland, and 5. When Mary Queen of Scots Realized She Was in an English Prison.
I have a textbook, published in 1973 in Kansas by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, Kansas. titled " The Church Teaches" .
" Documents of the Church in English translation." It is for the use of trainee R. C. Priests in America.
Each chapter deals with a separate topic and has every Bull issued by a Pope & dated, on it. Eg. The church, the Pope, Mary etc.
Every Bull declares, " that anyone denying the claims made, " let them be anathama" ( cursed.)"
Since no Bull can ever be changed or denied by future Popes, anyone who believes otherwise is cursed. This shows how intractable were those opposing any King, Queen or commoner who thought otherwise. ( I came by the book as it was donated to a Book Sale in my Town by the local Priest. As a bookworm I thought it looked interesting and kept it.) So I think Elizabeth was in a no-win situation if she tried to accommodate those who disagreed with her reign.
Look forward to sitting down to watch your video. Thanks 🙂
You are brilliant, engaging and best of all welcoming. Thank you for your content!
Dr. Kat I love your podcasts! I am a big fan of British history. I was wondering maybe if you could ever have a show about wether, Queen Elizabeth I was truly a virgin? I would find that fascinating. Thanks again for your fantastic podcast.
Have you looked up Dr Kat's older videos? I have a feeling she has done one.
In Clare in Ireland when Catholic land owners rebelled against Elizabeth they had their lands confiscated. BUT Elizabeth's courts awarded their estates to the nearest relatibe witha good claim, mostly Catholic, as long as they swore allegiance to Elizabeth.
Love Dr Kat's gold necklace/pendant
Another interesting video. Thank you Dr Kat.
This is a good one. Very informative. Great job!!!❤❤❤
I tuned in as the channel was recommended. And found the light I have been seeking. My French Artemide Tizios have died one by one and I wanted something with more natural light. And.. Good video! (now subscribed)
Fascinating as always. I do find myself biased on behalf of Elizabeth just because I like her. I'm also a pragmatist and think it would have been foolish not to have the competition done away with. That's what they did back then, and if I was a commoner back in yonder times I wouldn't have cared much who at the top had to lose their heads to ensure stability and peace for the country.
If not dyslexic then vision therapy ? When my daughter was young I managed to teach her to read but it was very hard for her Multiple checking sessions for dyslexia were negative Here in California there is a specialty for optometrists called vision therapy It’s a real medical deal not hokey Over one summer my daughter and I worked with the therapist to retrain muscle in her eyes She could then read properly 20 years later she still can and goes in yearly for testing
May be something for others to try
Excellent!
Hello dr kat been very busy with house but still catching videos in the evening with saddle dog next to me she turns 1 tomorrow and I am not ready for her to turn 1 it is amazing how fast she is growing still waiting on a niece to get my phone hooked up on RUclips I have to use a different app to get on RUclips hoping to catch a live so and be able to be in chats as well don’t worry I am still a loyal reader dr kat ps saddle dog says hello as well hello from Charlie the Guinea pigs sadly passed away about a month ago today still dealing with that loss yet
1st I do enjoy your program.
In my opinion, I believe that Queen Elizabeth did want to let her people worship the way each wanted but when it came to her life being threatened she had to protect herself
I just watched a RUclips video, “Catherine De Medici: The Black Queen of France” by the People Profile, She also started her time in France as supporting the middle road. However, it didn’t stop St Bart’s massacre. At that time, she became very Catholic.
Another perfect video
I often like to draw parallels between the past and the present, and I would see such a parallel (however imperfect) between the concern over Catholic 'terrorism' in the 16 and 17th century and Muslim 'terrorism' in modern times. Then as now, I am sure that many Catholics, and now most Muslims, just want to get on with life and avoid too much involvement in politics, much less with violent politics.
The Papal decrees in the 16th century can be seen as comparable to some of the fatwas given by some Muslim clerics at various times. The English support for the Dutch revolutionaries in the 16th century can also be compared with some more recent British (and other Western powers) imprudent involvement in various wars and support for some insurgent groups in the Middle East.
Conflicts in religious differences can often be seen in terms of Theology/Liturgy; that is, what to believe/how to worship. Of course, each element will influence the other, and the 2 may sometimes seem too intertwined to examine separately.
Thanks!
Thank you so much Theresa! This is very generous of you and I am truly grateful!
Thank you👍🏻😃
As an atheist, I am just thankful not to have lived in those times.
I think Elizabeth would have preferred to just let matters lie as she had declared from the beginning of her reign but the Catholics and the Pope kept interfering so she had to react or risk being seen as weak or later, being assassinated. I like to think she thought of herself as Queen of all her subjects and wished that trouble would not rear it’s ugly head. However, being a strong monarch, she regrettably was forced into defending herself and her authority.
It’s interesting how Elizabeth’s reign and religion is treated in general studies. So many sources act like once Elizabeth implemented “the middle way”, there was no real dissent until those rowdy puritans came along. Clearly that’s not the case!
What's sad is King Henry wife Jane Semore was a Catholic. Even though she hid it from king Henry. Jane had received queen Catherine cross necklace. I think people forgot about that. I wonder why no one told king Edward the 6th that his mom was a Catholic.
Excuse my spelling.
Edward was surrounded by ideologues. He was a little boy with no mind of his own
@@04nbod Respectfully I feel I must disagree. Yes, he was young, but he was assuredly no milk and water prince. As he grew older, his ideas on proper worship and ornamentation in church became more definite and defined and he took great pains to try and ensure that the ground gained by Protestantism in Britain should not be lost. He felt confident enough to argue with Mary, whom he loved, until both sides retired in tears. His Councillors could not have pushed his Great Matter, disinheriting both his half sisters in favor of Jane Grey if he hadn't agreed, at least in part.
@@Chrisiant He was educated by religious radicals so what do you expect to pop out the other side of that? Similarly Mary was raised Catholic and that informed her worldview. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
Similarly, how did James I. The son of a devout Catholic end up Protestant? (although his family largely reverted in later generations after escaping to France in the Civil War)
I know I'm late to the conversation but I don't think Elizabeth really cared that much about religion. I think she cared only to the extent that it suited her means. I think she saw what happened when a ruler went to extremes with religion with both Edward and Mary and she wasn't going to follow down the same road, if she could help it. Besides the fact that she was too intelligent to let something like religion endanger her reign. It took her too long to get there and she was definitely not going to let anything keep her from ruling her country, if she could help it!
The true benefit on Natural Daylight Wavelength Balanced Light is to combat winter depression in the northern latitudes. If only Scrooge had one of these. ❤
In my opinion, Elizabeth tried to do what the pope should have done: allowing people to breathe. As long as they would not endanger her life and her government, she practiced tolerance. Remember, she knew Phillip II personally, and had witnessed the harm that the inquisition had done to the people.
If we look at the damage the Inquisition had done to Spain, where even high clergy (Isabella of Castilles personal chaplain) or saintly people (like ignatius of Loyola) were not safe from prosecution, Elizabeth´s reign appears generous and considerate by comparison.
The fact that the gentry remained in the catholic faith much longer, is certainly a consequence of the heavy fines. Only rich people could afford that.
Thanks for doing these videos
Thank you ☺️
Hi Dr Kat-how could the authorities ascertain who missed the state church services (and impose the fine?) Was there a network of spies?
Could you cover St Margaret Clitherow? Her story may shed a little light on Elizabeth's position.
Or the Duke of Norfolk who was left to rot in the Tower but offered complete exoneration from the Queen, if he attended Protestant mass
Love theses the videos amd it was fun on history after dark
A living descendant of Thomas Blagrave. Who was Elizabeth I Master of Revels for a time. I would love to hear some about he, and Shakespeare if you have access to information, or resources that aren't overt.
I feel like the Pope was just putting people at risk here.
I think Elizabeth honestly wanted to find an agreeable middle ground. If Mary had been willing/ able to say that she didn’t want Elizabeth’s thrown and that she wasn’t a threat to her cousin then she probably would have lived.
Elizabeth was protecting her life and thrown. I don’t think that Elizabeth wanted Mary dead, but finally had to agree that her cousin had made herself a threat.
Mary couldn't say that, she was the natural heir of Elizabeth's throne by birth
Great video
I suspect that both on a personal level and in keeping with her effort to quelle the religious controversies of her father and siblings, Elizabeth was probably being sincere in her desire "not to pry into men's souls." However, through his papal bull of 1570, Pius V made this impossible. The papal bull amounted to a "fatwa" of sorts, in which the pope declared war on the English monarchy. It was a stupid move on his part, but Elizabeth and her ministers recognized the danger. I don't like the actions that she took against Roman Catholics in England, but in the context of the time she may have believed they were the only choice.
Love your videos. The ones on religion always make me ponder atheism (as an athiest). Would it even be possible for someone like Elizabeth to be an athiest? Or even a commoner at that time? Was it a concept?
Aprapo of all these schemes, I really enjoyed The Serpent Queen which is about Catherine de Medici. MQOS portrayal in that is very different from how I've usually seen her portrayed (i.e. not so much heroic and defiant as stubborn and controlling and a bit thick...)
Elizabeth I in regard to religion is a very interesting topic. As a devout Roman Catholic myself, I would like to give input. By the end of Mary I's reign, Catholicism had indisputably became the religion of the majority folk in England, practiced by many powerful wealthy elites as well. Elizabeth's settlement was, I would say, unnecessary. Before I say some more, I would like to assert that I certainly do not subscribe to the modern thought that Elizabeth didn't really care for which religion or denomination you followed, so long as you obeyed her. She was a committed Protestant, and she wanted England to be the same. Within less than a year after Mary's death, yet another sweeping religious change had occurred. With the reintroduction of the Oath of Supremacy, Catholics were inevitably forced to deny their faith. From the Catholic perspective, the Church is established by Jesus Christ, who gave Peter, the first Pope, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, titling him "The Rock", the feeder of the sheep, the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And this divine authority is passed through unbroken succession From Peter, to Linus, to Anacletus, to Clement, and so on with 262 successors. From the Elizabethan Reformationist point of view, This idea of Roman governance and authority over the church (which they perceived to be usurped) had to be overthrown by royal authority in the person of Elizabeth. So Catholics were forced to deny one of the most important aspects of their faith and refusal to sign on to it became treason in 1562. Also the Elizabethan Settlement was emphatically Anti-Catholic. Transubstantiation, the Catholic doctrine that the substance of bread and wine is transformed into the very Body and Blood of Christ was declared to be superstitious and utterly false. The number of Sacraments was reduced to 2 in contrast with the 7 of the Catholic Church. The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was emphatically rejected, and Catholic devotional practices such as venerating relics and invoking the saints were also declared idolatrous and superstitious. To be a Catholic, in Elizabethan England, was to be a traitor, to even be caught with a small devotional item with you, you could be thrown in prison, such was the case with Cuthbert Mayne when he was caught with an Agnus Dei around his neck. Imagine the authorities raiding your house because they suspect you are hiding priests, oh yeah the celebration of Catholic Masses had been illegal since the Act of Uniformity in 1559. I would have to hand it to the Elizabethan Government though, their strategy in their massive attempt to eradicate and permanently extinguish the Catholic faith was successful, mainly in their harsh and merciless repression of Catholic priests. Because, well, no priests, no sacrament. No priest, no Mass, no confession, you get the idea... Reading about people like Edmund Gennings, Edmund Campion, Margaret Clitherow, and James Thompson, you really get an idea of the sheer ruthlessness, savageness, and dare I say sadistic nature of the Elizabethan Persecution. But anyhow I have been writing this for a while now, I would be interested to hear your thoughts or anybody else's. Pax.
I recommend this: The Puritans and Music in England and New England: A Contribution to the Cultural History of the Two Nations by Percy A. Scholes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934).
Scholes (1877-1958) will give you a fair history of music as it relates to the Puritans. This book, by the way, was one of the first to start to clear away the unfair and misleading caricatures regarding the Puritans.
I think you glossed over the fact that Elizabeth basically imprisoned Mary unlawfully, so who can blame her for trying to escape. At the end of the day, Catholics in England and and Scotland got the short end of the stick all the way to the present day.
I can't see into Elizabeth I's soul, but if your life is on the line and there are people of extreme views on both sides, the middle-ish way?
When I think of Mary I and her attempts to conceive, I often wonder if one of her siblings may have uttered a curse upon her not unlike the very curse King Lear calls down upon his daughter Goneril,
"Hear, Nature, hear, dear goddess, hear! Suspend thy purpose if thou didst intend To make this creature fruitful. Into her womb convey sterility. Dry up in her the organs of increase, And from her derogate body never spring A babe to honour her!"
If someone asks you what your religion is, and you know that priests are being hunted and killed and people associated with them are being killed. What do you say?
As I listen to your detailed explanations I’m struck by how over simplified and downright misleading my school history was. I learned English history in Australia.
Well I thought my friends from NZ & Austraila were better educated than here in the states. I think basically they sweep stuff under the rug because the gov doesn't want to deal w/ things they don't want to take responsabilty for. Herethe gov always said one thing did another w/ ingenious people who lived here first. Am guessingsame is true down & in South Africa.
We started in 1066, touched on the Magna Carta, jumped to the War of the Roses, Henry VIII through to Elizabeth I - who I learned “brought freedom to choose to be Catholic or CofE” (!!!!!) and then jumped to WWI with the briefest passing mention of the Plague and the Fire of London (that “ended the Black Death”) on the way. Even Victoria was passed with the briefest mention. Apparently they thought studying any Dickens in English class was sufficient.
@@RobynCoburn my 🇦🇺 history lessons covered a little of most countries, but not old enough for my interest. Dr Kat has interested my mind with more modern history. I wanted to understand the beginning of this planet & its many changes.
Maybe she wasn’t a believer at all and was doing what she thought was best for the country. Given what she had seen throughout her life because of religion nobody could blame her for being a non-believer surely?
Fantastic video. Thank you. I did think though that Jane’s reign was actually 13 days and not the common misconception of 9 days. Do you say 9 days as that’s what most think?
Technically Jane's reign commenced on the death of Edward VI but it was a few days later when the official proclamation was performed. Just like the process King Charles III recently undertook. Hence 12 days reign but 9 days after proclamation before Mary I rode into town & seized the throne.
An' it harm none, do as ye will.
As a fellow dyslexic, I am beginning to think that dyslexia is peculiarly idiosyncratic. I not only have dyslexia but astygmaticsm, and eye strain is a constant threat. I found that writing on black paper with a white pen made the letters wiggle less, and shine from the page was eliminated. Your mileage, of course, may vary. However, may I ask a question? Just finished Hayley Nolan's "500 Years Of Lies" about Anne Boylen. Now I am curious..was Anne Boylen an evangelical reformer, rather than a slinky seductress? Was Henry VIII a psychopath, who discarded or destroyed his wives if they disappointed him?
It is unfortunate, but nothing, and I mean nothing, has caused more misery, death, and destruction than religion - either in forcing religious views on others, or exploiting religion for gain. The crusades, the Saxon Wars, and many other examples exist throughout history show that religion has been the core of much change and damage.
I can’t help wonder how different history would have been if Catherine of Aragon had produced a son that lived. Ann Boleyn for that matter as well…
Why did they overturn Edward's succession decision and go back to Henry VIIIs when Edward was the anointed King and his decision should have been the final one over a dead king's?
Actual video starts at 3:38.
Did England have enough soldiers to repel the Spanish invasion if they indeed had landed?
What was the pilgrimage of grace that is mentioned in the first part of this video?
A massive revolt in the north of England against the dissolution of the monasteries.
@@bertrandklermannb2k768 Probably worth a video of its own ironically one of Catherine Parr's previous husband's was sort of involved in it.
It was a very popular Catholic uprising that began in Northern England made up of the common people who protested the Dissolution of the Monasteries. They wanted to be peaceful...at first, but it soon became violent due to King Henry's regime doing everything they could to stamp out this rebellion.
We over on the other side of the pond have no idea how the reformation changed our culture.
For those that were in the "americas" before, the reformation and the events after had devastating results. The original inhabitants were decimated in " the name of god".
@@swearenginlawanda true & it wasn't until i did my family geneolgy did I realize how much we the new inhabinets of the Americas brought over the bad habits of our ancestors. Thx
Dr Kat didn't mention the rest of Europe but they had their own regious issues w/ old vs new. I had no idea how much the French, German, Dutch, Scandenavia had dealt w/ same issues. Then find out about long standing issues of the Jewish that were all over Europe & parts east of Europe.
I recently listened to "The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty." The author thought Elizabeth seemed to vacillate between Catholicism and Protestantism because she was was always doing whatever she thought would keep her safe at the time.
Elizabeth I's middle way was not a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism, Under Elizabeth, the 39 Articles were ratified which clearly repudiated the Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and papal supremacy. Rather, Elizabeth's middle way should be conceptualized as a broad middle way within Protestantism, in appealing both to Puritans who wanted to push the CofE even further to the continental Reformers and to 'high church Protestants', who rejected the doctrines of Roman Catholicism while still open to retaining some traditions from the post Biblical heritage of Christianity.
I think Elizabeth wanted to find a middle way. Maybe some of her government didn't, but it didn't stand a chance. Radicals would not it happen.
I believe Henry an Elizabeth thought that each country would have a state church run by a king. Serfdom had collapsed and a need for a more educated populace was needed. The counter reformation was run by Ignatius of Loyola. He founded the jesuits the biggest order of the catholic church. They built schools. Ignatius was born around the same time as Henry viii. South Amerca went catholic with our lady of guadalupe December 1531. earlier that year Henry declared himself head of the English church. Imo that was the beginning if the end of monarchy.
I really believe middle road.
Dr Kat, I was wondering if you might consider this for a future video topic: Recently, I have been in a fair few credible and academic settings that have denounced William Shakespeare as a person who even existed, let alone one entity who wrote plays. The conspiracy holds that “William Shakespeare was a pen name” or “William Shakespeare was a noble who was able to take credit for other playwrights’ work.” This seems to be a more recent theory, and I’m not sure this is as widespread a belief as I have been lead to believe. Is it possible to go into the details of his life/family history to either confirm or deny this rumor? If you have a video similar to this I apologize and I am sure I will find it as I’ve been steadily going through your library. I also don’t blame you if this is just one of many internet age conspiracies that people senior to me had been lead to believe. Thank you for all the time your take to share with us all the things you do, you’ve reminded me how much I love research and I’m a big fan :)
In recent years, knowledge about William Shakespeare has grown exponentially. Dr. Kat has discussed quite a bit of it. And, the footnotes of Shakespeare's Wiki page can take you to much more. It would be interesting, however, to look at conspiracies of all kinds from a historical perspective.
An idea for a video:
Comparing the legacy of Queen Mary I to her half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I. Specifically comparing the way that Mary treated protestants to the way that Elizabeth treated catholics.
She definitely did open windows into men’s souls with Catholics and Puritans
Late however tea to the ready xxx
As always, great stuff but at 21:28 dyslexia strikes again! LOL
Oh bums! It was right in front of me at every stage too 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
That was a pretty standard old Whig interpretation of history. Bad Spaniards. Good Protestant Elizabethans. Historical research has gone beyond that in the last 40 years
I remember Simon Schama saying that even as a Jewish boy he learned the Protestant version of the reformation (specifically that Catholicism was a dying religion before the reformation) and it wasn't until university he realised it wasn't true. BBC documentaries on the subject are shockingly partisan. Even the word 'reformation' suggests it was necessary and good.
@@04nbod Thank God for Eamon Duffy
𝐩яⓞ𝓂𝓞Ş𝐦 🤘
The actual video starts at 3:35 🍀👍
During the long reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558-1603), 189 men and women were put to death for their Roman Catholic faith, or (as the regime would have it) for its treasonable implications. In a way, the rebels of the Prayer Book died because of their Roman Catholic faith under Edward VI. Around 900 prisoners were massacred by Lord Russell's troops after the Battle of Clyst St Mary to stop them escaping and rejoining the enemy. During the reign of Henry VIII, some 50 heretics had been burned at the stake, while in its last 15 years, 69 Roman Catholics had been executed. Mary I was the worst, but she wasn't the only Tudor who did so.