The reformation of England had been a long drawn out affair dating back to King Henry VIIIs Act of Supremacy in 1534. By the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, many historians believe that she inherited a country, which was still predominantly Catholic in belief. Although people of South Eastern England were likely to be influenced by the peoples of Europe, who were experiencing reforms, Doran (1994) suggests that the number of Protestants accounted for just 14 per cent of the population of Sussex and less than 10 per cent in Kent.
Whether rural lifestyles were largely unaffected by changing religious doctrine due to a primitive communications network or general disinterest, as long as the laity were allowed to continue living as they had previously, is open for debate. However the attitudes of city dwellers in London, Englands premier city and official residence of the monarchy were quite different. The brief rule of Queen Mary, Elizabeths predecessor and Catholic half sister had brought about the restoration of Catholic practices and also a regime of Protestant persecution.
Public executions of branded heretics proved to have an adverse reaction as it created strong anti-Catholic sentiment and rather than to extirpate the Protestant faith, those who converted to Protestantism, if they were not exiled went underground. Described by Briscoe (2000), Elizabeth I is considered to be one of the countrys most successful and popular monarchs. Unlike the reign of her sister Mary, which was by and large disastrous, Elizabeth made herself a powerful image of female authority through the embellishment and through concrete policies that she urged her nation to follow (Jagger (1995)).
Her policies could be attributed to the rigorous education she received as a child, which included history, languages, moral philosophy, theology and rhetoric. Her tutor Roger Ascham believed her mind to have no womanly weaknesses, and her perseverance and memory to be equal to that of a man (Jagger (1995)). As an adult however, although very intelligent, ruthless and calculating at times, she was also renowned for her indecisive nature. This was due to the fact that she sought peace above all other objects (Johnson (1974) p2): a trait, which many historians believe to have come from her father.
Elizabeth viewed Catholicism as a threat both to what she considered true religion and her throne. 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. (Queen Elizabeth I, 1583). In comparison to Queen Marys ruthless policy over Protestant subjects, Elizabeth adopted a cautious if not liberal policy towards Catholicism.
The general consensus of many historians is that Elizabeth did not really care about what her subjects believed as long as they kept their religious views to themselves. Doran (1994 et al) bring to light instances when Protestants, exiled under the previous reign, were invited to preach on public occasions, while Catholic preachers were simply harassed or arrested. Nevertheless Catholics received far lighter punishments for their beliefs. Following the 1559 Act of Uniformity, Catholics were expected to conform outwardly.
The imposition of one-shilling fines on those who did not attend Church of England services on Sundays and various other days were set out to achieve this. Similarly there were penalties imposed on clerics who did not follow the specified rites of the Book of Common Prayer or chose to publicly attack them. Their first offence would result in imprisonment for six months and loss of a years income. Successive offences would carry a years imprisonment, then life imprisonment if caught a third time.
The Act of Supremacy was passed in the same year, which actively encouraged Protestantism within the sphere of government offices. According to Doran, the majority of MPs would have taken the oath as they wanted to retain their titles to the Church lands purchased under Kings Henry VIII and Edward, and also to regain those confiscated under Queen Mary. Those who refused to take the oath lost their positions. Furthermore, anyone who overtly upheld the Pope as head of the Church initially faced losing property. If he proceeded he would lose all of his goods and freedom, and in due course his life.
This method of coercion was to help form the habit of going to the Church of England so that future generations would readily accept the new or true religion as being the norm. The imposition of the penalties could not be considered as excessively harsh, as they were enforced so as not to create martyrs. Rather, the fines imposed for attempting to maintain a system of worship outside the Church of England were sufficiently stiff to encourage Catholic gentry to conform outwardly (Warren (1998) p65). This was to have the effect of setting an example for the lower classes to follow.
Although Elizabeths treatment of Catholics had been relatively lenient during the first few years of her reign, religious uniformity gathered momentum. The Act of Supremacy was revised in 1563 when a second refusal to take the oath was to result in execution. Dean Nowell of St Pauls addressed Parliament with his view on heresy: By the scriptures, murderers, breakers of the holy day, and maintainers of false religion ought to die by the sword (Warren (1998) p66). However, the queen instructed Archbishop Parker that no-one should be asked a second time to subscribe to the oath.
It can therefore be accepted that the queens nature was given to clemency and mercy. Following the arrival of her Catholic cousin Mary Queen of Scots in 1568, parliament developed an increasing hard-line approach on Catholicism. Mary Stuart claimed that she was the legitimate heir to the throne, as Elizabeth had been declared illegitimate in a statute, which had never been formally repealed (Johnson (1974) p23). Elizabeth had her imprisoned, allowing her time to think about the situation she found herself in.
Mary found support from the Northern nobility who were also, by and large, Catholic victims of Elizabeth. (According to Warren, in a bid to weaken the control of the great landowners who overshadowed the Crowns authority, she had stopped them from trading with the Low Countries). The Duke of Norfolk, considered to be the greatest of the nobles, planned to marry Mary. This would in effect bestow the return of the Catholicism to England should the legitimate heir to the throne marry a leading member of the aristocracy, who was himself a devout Catholic.
When Elizabeth learned about the marriage negotiations between Mary Stuart and the powerful and influential Duke of Norfolk, she had him imprisoned in the Tower of London. Spurred on by members of the northern gentry, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland attempted an insurgence in the North, in 1569, to show their discontent at the monarchy and government. It was a rather paltry attempt, which culminated in rebels entering Durham Cathedral and restoring the altars and the Catholic mass (McGrath (1967) p66).
Although there was no fighting involved, such an act of defiance against Elizabeth was met by several hundred of the rebels being hanged for treason, as a warning to others. Pope Pius V issued Regnans in Excelsis, the bull excommunicating and deposing Elizabeth, whom he publicly referred to as the woman who pretended to be queen of England. It was to coincide with revolt of the earls but arrived too late and as it hadnt been formally communicated to the papists in England and consequently failed in the attempt to rouse support.
If such a condemnation been issued by the papacy before the government and the established church had had time to consolidate their position, then there would have been at least a chance that Catholicism in England would have become a much more effective force (McGrath (1967) p72). Nevertheless, many historians appear to believe that by this time many Catholics had begun to support their monarch even though they still possessed Catholic beliefs.