As I've mentioned before, my mother LOVES church history, so i grew up listening to the history of the reformation (mostly from a methodist perspective, as both my great great and my great grandfathers were ordained methodist ministers). Hearing the political side of this history is so fascinating! I think a lot of people forget that religion was just as much about politics as it was faith at this point in time (or even more!) ⛪️👸
I can't imagine the pressure Queen Elizabeth felt, even on good days, to protect her realm and herself. I would imagine most of the events had an impact on her. Another great video, thank you!👸🏽💂🕸️
I was raised Catholic, in Catholic schools, so Elizabeth the First was never exactly liked. Even then, it was generally considered the Papal Bull did nothing but to hurt Catholics who wanted a quiet life. I personally think Walsingham was spurred on by his trauma and I also think Elizabeth became paranoid (most rulers do) - both understandable, but not necessarily helpful. I do wonder if Elizabeth, who had her grandfather Henry's desire to be frugal but her father's desire to be extravagant thought it a bit funny to shake down her Catholic nobles - let them outwardly conform enough she was safe, but it's all helpful for the coffers.
I think it likely that ALL of these things affected the change in laws. At the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, she was not secure on the throne. She’s very pragmatic and knew extremism didn’t work for her sister so she advocated tolerance. There was always going to be unrest following an extreme shift in religion, but perhaps England would’ve been able to get that sorted if they were in a vacuum. But Mary, QOS, the pope’s excommunication, and the interference of Spain made that impossible. E knew how bad things could get for Protestants after seeing the slaughter in France, and it had to feel like the world was coming for England and their Protestants. I think she had no choice but to deal harshly to keep England out of war with herself on the throne, and by then she was secure enough to be effective at it.
“ I think she had no choice but to deal harshly to keep England out of war .” Keeping England out of war was always foremost in mind …both for reasons of finance and for the stability of the realm.
Brilliant! I did not know that Walsingham witnessed the events in Paris....that explains a lot! I can't help thinking that this is analogous to the "Gaza" situation.... The fact of war is that, where there are valid enemy assets and plots, they become valid strategic targets, collateral damage be damned. I don't think that Elizabeth's best intentions were altered (in her head and heart). Reality dictated otherwise. She wished that people would be responsibly devout whilst outwardly conforming "for the good of the kingdom". Many did exactly that. Again, BRILLIANT, Dr. Kat (and don't forget Reginald Pole....I'm waiting with baited breath!).
“Reality dictated otherwise “ is absolutely on point. Elizabeth was a pragmatist at heart, which is perhaps unsurprising given her tumultuous and precarious upbringing.
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of that church. Their never-ending push to impose and maintain their theocratic rule over people whether they wanted it or not, continually made warfare and misery for ordinary people. Elizabeth preferred not to "have a window into" people's hearts, as to what they believed and how (and whether) they prayed. But the unending push to externalize belief and impose it on people in the form of theocratic rule made it more and more impossible to maintain tolerance. The Pope was to blame with his "bull" (so aptly termed), and trying to secretly infiltrate England with priests, and support Mary Queen of Scots to take over Elizabeth's throne. We see it today in America, with the "Christian" right demanding that laws and courts should impose their beliefs upon everyone, whether Christian or not. We see it in the tragedy of Israel and Palestine, and to women who suffer under fundamentalist Islamic government throughout the world. If people keep their practice of religion within their own minds and hearts, and don't try to get the government involved in it, we would have a much more peaceful and just world. I see no real future for the world as long as some religions feel they have the right to force their ways upon the rest of us.
Agreed. Also, her own Council was very frustrated by her reluctance to criminalize/punish Catholic worship. She was very moderate in how she wanted to govern religion. I think seeing what Edward and Mary did during their reigns gave her a constant reminder of how quickly the realm descends into paranoia, chaos, and instability when a monarch takes to religious tyranny and also made her empathetic to those who believed differently.
Agreed, faith or being agnostic is a personal choice for many. Unfortunately there are people world wide trying to instil their “total obedience” to man-made rules regarding some faiths. Best wishes from Adelaide; South Australia🇦🇺💐
All of these issues surely played a role, but it strikes me that Regnans in Excelsis was the turning point. It was a bone-headed move by Pius V. Everything I know about Elizabeth I indicates to me that she truly did only want only outward conformity, and she wanted social and political conformity. It was Pius V's papal bull that turned Roman Catholicism into a threat to Elizabeth personally, and to her government. Can you imagine what would have happened to England if Mary Stuart had taken the throne? 🙄She had shown such poor judgment during her short active reign on the Scottish throne that I'm surprised even the recusant English nobility would have even considered her a viable successor to a deposed Elizabeth.
Totally nailed it! Regnans in Excelsis was where it all started going downhill for recusants. What was Pius V thinking! And I have never thought about what an absolute disaster Mary Stuart would have been as Queen of England. That's a brilliant point about what the recusant nobility would have done.
I think that Pius V was the catalyst that changed Queen Elizabeth's policy . As to what Pius V was thinking , it was power and influence . He wanted England to become a Catholic power.
Another great video! I'm not sure there was a single event that caused the shift in policy. I think Regnans in Excelis was the tipping point, but maybe not the last straw. Massive blunder by Pius V. Elizabeth may have worried a little bit about her own excommunication, but absolving the faithful of loyalty to their sovereign and at the same time threatening them with excommunication if they continued in that loyalty would have been extremely alarming. Still, Elizabeth continued to act in the prudent and measured way she always did in the wake of the Bull. It was obviously not good enough for Walsingham, who continued to goad her into taking additional measures against Catholics and against Mary. But it took another 15 or 16 years before Elizabeth finally signed Mary's death warrant.I do think St. Bartholomew was the last straw for Walsingham, and that he redoubled his effort to eliminate Mary and all Papists from that point onward.👑
I look forward to your posts every week. Might I suggest that you help us with some of the convoluted Elizabethan language in some of the transcripts 😊
Fascinating, thank you. In my humble opinion, just through observation across a lifetime, it is fear and a need for control. People are afraid of losing control in their lives, aristocrats are no different. To feel that control (in a universe which, essentially, wants us dead) people resort to religion for control over the unknown, money, knowledge and power for control over the known. At a time when religion was taking away their control and power those with it did their best to make sure they kept it, however slight their control, to avoid fear and used others' fears to control them. Of course, the more we have the more we fear losing. The same is happening today.
⛪️ 👑 📖 I think that in the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth wanted to be more lenient in her approach to religion because she did not want to alienate her subjects after the Catholic reign of her half sister, Mary. It was the numerous plots of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her Catholic supporters, along with the papal bull, that caused her to harden her resolve and assert her sovereign authority over the the religious life of her subjects.
I think that both Elizabeth and her ministers/advisers took it very seriously. We've emerged from a couple of centuries when "religion/faith" could be taken or left. Now we are again in an age when our own or other peopes faith and /or religion can seriously impact lives or even inflict death. A few words pointing out a rational fact or expressing pity at suffering can have us accused of hate crime,of supporting the T word,of being a disgusting human being no matter which "side" the words we have expressed feature. Elizabeth took to wearing a padded bodice and barely slept so aware was she of the danger of being stabbed by a figure in the shadows. I think current events relate us to that mindset.
Another enlightening and compelling video, Dr. Kat! Thank you so much. Your work has become one of the highlights of my Fridays and a great start to the weekend. 🇫🇷⛪️
I always wondered about people who were ill. Were they still required to attend church? Were they fined? Or were they allowed to skip it if they had a good reason?
I think Elizabeth would have preferred to leave people's religious consciences to themselves, before she discovered that too many would take advantage of that.
No comment or opinion, rather a (few) questions regarding the fines for non-attendance at church. Was this only for a head of household, everyone under his roof, only confirmed church members, or perhaps every baptized Christian? Answers gratefully received! 🙂
Dr. Kat. I love your take on history. Your insight into Elizabeth's reign are articulate, thoughtful and as I like to say open to discussion. Thank you.❤
Amazing video as always. Would you ever cover how Halloween has transformed into what it is today, but by taking a look at it through the courtly lense of England?
I think Elizabeth saw what happened during Edwards reign and Marys and decided to avoid the same issues to choose a more middle road of acceptance and so long as her subjects honored her she let them worship God how ever they chose. I find her reign was very enlightened honestly.
Was just mentioning that her siblings' reigns had to have affected her greatly. If course the fear during Mary's but also the way the religious shifting destabilized the country. Elizabeth was always very in tune with how things affected the citizens. Some of that was self preservation but it has always seemed say least partially due to genuine care to me
thank you for bringing in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre - I studied this very question at school but did not come across this link; complicating things which I already know something about is my favourite aspect of your channel ☺
I think another interesting point is that so many of the plots against Elizabeth “depended” on a presumed general uprising by Catholics. As Dr. Kat points out, the financial penalties for being recusant for the poorest of her subjects were cost-prohibitive. Better for them to go along to get along. So they will stay on the sidelines. For the wealthy recusants, the fines were pocket change, so why risk participating in an uncertain rebellion, at a time of relative peace and prosperity ( given the religious chaos of Mary Tudor’s reign ) . They could still practice their faith and Pius put them in a position of risking life and fortune, without certain support. Had not read previously of Walsingham’s witness of the Huguenot massacre. That adds a new layer of complexity
I think the Papal Bull was issued to try to bolster the rebellion to Elizabeth I. It pushed Elizabeth I to act more strenuously against the Pope and other rebellious noblemen. She knew having a queen on the throne showed her vulnerable to noblemen wishing a return to Roman Catholicism. It was a long, complex problem, and I don't think just one issue was the catalyst. Crossed swords 👑⚔️⛪️
Thanks for another great topic! I think that people were extremely on edge and used to so many extremes in religious intolerance since Elizabeth's father and ripples of religious intolerance throughout Europe that it was going to be nearly impossible for Elizabeth to adopt a middle ground. Religious intolerance and violence was the only language they understood. I think if she had gone even further into religious tolerance, maybe people would have come round, the English Civil War might have even been avoided, or she would have been deposed in one way or another, perhaps by her own Protestants who didn't understand the concept of leaving their neighbors' beliefs to themselves. Do I think Elizabeth went too far? Yes. Just like her father, siblings, and all of Europe, yes. But I'm pinning the turn on Pius V seeing a chance in Mary Queen of Scots to get power and funds from England returned to Rome. 📸 ⚰
Did any of Mary's foreign supporters take into consideration the decisively unsuccessful attempt of Mary Tudor to bring England back to the old religion? Backing a monarch who had made one poor political decision after another and then putting her in a position where good judgment and instincts would be paramount...? What were they thinking?
I think Elizabeth’s real feelings were not “didn’t want to make windows”. She’s a women of her time. But she had the bad example of M1. Didn’t want to start her reign that way 😉
Great video! I particularly love this topic, as there are so many different factors at play, for E1 to consider, plus the pope and the English people.. She tried to take a tolerant position at the beginning of her reign, but unfortunately circumstances did not support it for the long term..
Wonderfully informative and thought provoking video! 🎉🎉🎉 I believe hands were forced to become more militant on both sides as neither was ever going to be completely happy until the ouster, if not eradication, of the other.
The Dukes of Norfolk were always the spectre at the feast for the Tudors, powerful, the second family in the land after the royal family, and with family connections, not adverse to flexing their power and of course the most prominent Catholic family in the land I’d love you to do a video about the family - their influence and mindset Thanks !
Thank you Dr Kat for this information. I think each event in turn lead to her change of heart. She must have felt that she was being to liberal in her early options. Especially after threats and attacks at home and abroad in this short span of time. 🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁
I think that Elizabeth’s policies had to have been affected by all those events. Sadly, the Catholic Church was constantly attempting to replace her. 👑
I think that Elizabeth was consistent in her position: what was in the heart was (Unlike her half brother Edward) not her concern. As long as you paid the fines, you could believe what you wished (paying fines to continue to do what you wished was an established practice). However, after some tried to return England to Catholicism by force, the country had been attacked. Thus, even if she had wanted to ignore it, she couldn't. I believe her letters to Mary, Q of S, show that this continued to be her position.
Please more about the 1570's... This was a great dip... I'm trying to figure out what happened in the 1570's actions and pictures if possible... I Love You & your teaching's. You Share clear and very understandable 👍👍
I think the massacre, her excommunication and Walsingham were behind the change of heart. ⚔The way you spelled out the Ridolfi Plot conspirators made me think of The Usual Suspects. Norfolk. Again. 😁
I think she was prepared to be tolerant up until a point, when she first got on the throne. However, I think the reality of keeping power probably put paid to that and caused the change in policy. 👸 ✝️ 😢
⚔I feel the biggest motivation for Elizabeth & her counselors would have been to avoid having their government overthrown. When they felt they could do this by allowing papists some wiggle room so they wouldn't feel as much need to rebel, they were more conciliatory. When they felt that papists with any wiggle room were likely to plot against them, they cracked down.
By giving a wink and a nod to the different plots, Mart sealed her fate. And her adherents, by not being circumspect, made the climate much, much worse. Though I am, arguably a supporter of the Scottish Queen, I have always thought everyone, on Mary's "side" acted as though their reason had fled their brains! They had to know Elizabeth would not look upon any of the machinations with favour. Just have to shake my head. And, sorry, I don't know how to affix a glyph. It would have been the Saltyre and a crown.
The reason I have asked all these questions is that I have hopes that you will devote future podcasts to all of them.I realize that I should pay for this major effort that I am requesting from you. But for several different reasons that I would prefer to discuss with you later I don't feel comfortable going into them in this space However, if you do deide to do podcasts on one or more of these suggested topics, I will find way of compensating you for your expenses. Many thanks for considering my requests.
Why and how is it that the one conflict that dedeviled England in Tudor times, The conflict between th English and the Irish, still plague both countries today?
Good question - perhaps he admired her regardless? Maybe he found the idea of deposition offensive? Could he have recognised the value of earn her trust and friendship?
That did surprise me. But was this before or after the rebellion that usurped them for a month but they got back in. If before it suggests that Cosimo believed in Rulers "right to rule,divine or not" and that good,capable,profit enabling rulers should be respected and not plotted against. He gets extra points from me.
It is my humble opinion that Elizabeth 1, at the start of her reign wanted her subjects to have religious peace. Religion and politics are power to be had over the people. Everyone wishes to have that power.
I think as Elizabeth was getting older she was tired of all the trouble’s religion caused and just wanted to make an end to such things. She tried to compromise and got nothing but pushback. So yes she had just had enough and made sure everyone knew it. Thus came the “I am the sovereign and what I say goes” period of her reign.
As a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, I’m sure the St Bartholomew’s 📖 😮Day Massacre would have spun me into high alert 🚨 & massacre-prevention mode. Especially if I were a Protestant queen in a catholic world. What a target Queen Bess became! 🎯 Best defense being a good offense, there’d be more than fines for skipping Anglican church on Sundays on my watch.
You know, there were enough plotting and conspiracy characters in and out of Elizabeth’s life, that it would warrant a deck of cards. Who would be the Ace, Mary Queen of Scots, Phillip II, or Pope Pius V maybe. It would be interesting to see someone flush this idea out.
Roldofi: My lord I have a cunning plan. Doing your best to take the middle ground, was a good political stance to take at the start of Elizabeth's reign. However, there are many who in Europe who would consider there was only one way to save a man's soul (and maybe women's and children's soul as well). That was following the roman church, so they would be willing to go to extremes. Extremes as seen in the inquisition. So a middle way didn't work and policy had to change. We have no window into the soul of Elizabeth I, only the decisions and writings of a well educated person brought up in the politics and religious verve of the time.
Obviously that Regnans in Esxelsis was interpreted (realistically IMO) as a threat to Queen Elizabeth and her monarchy, even her country. 👑 Not sure how it would have been interpreted by the people as hadn't most of them converted to the Church of England by then? ⛪ So would ex-communication by their former Catholic church been seen as that great of a threat? Maybe a religiously scary time with what was going on with the Huguenots. Btw, I use that same website to convert money when doing my ancestry. This much money in 2017 could buy 10 horses etc lol.
What is the skull thingy behind your right shoulder? Sorry but I gotta know. Is it a sloth skull? Cat skull? 💀 🤔 (Edit: notice I tried to follow the directions, I included emojis for the algorithm or whatever 😬)
What I don’t get is how the Pope could excommunicate Elizabeth who was never a Catholic, neither were her Protestant people. Was he just that arrogant that he thought he could dictate international policy?
As I've mentioned before, my mother LOVES church history, so i grew up listening to the history of the reformation (mostly from a methodist perspective, as both my great great and my great grandfathers were ordained methodist ministers). Hearing the political side of this history is so fascinating! I think a lot of people forget that religion was just as much about politics as it was faith at this point in time (or even more!) ⛪️👸
Love your content! Is incredible!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤
You are very kind, thank you 😊
There was also in 1569-1571 a rebellion against Elizabeth in Ireland: the First Desmond Rebellion. A predominantly Catholic rebellion.
I'd like to know more
I can't imagine the pressure Queen Elizabeth felt, even on good days, to protect her realm and herself. I would imagine most of the events had an impact on her. Another great video, thank you!👸🏽💂🕸️
Thank you for this thought provoking discussion. Very educational.
I was raised Catholic, in Catholic schools, so Elizabeth the First was never exactly liked. Even then, it was generally considered the Papal Bull did nothing but to hurt Catholics who wanted a quiet life. I personally think Walsingham was spurred on by his trauma and I also think Elizabeth became paranoid (most rulers do) - both understandable, but not necessarily helpful. I do wonder if Elizabeth, who had her grandfather Henry's desire to be frugal but her father's desire to be extravagant thought it a bit funny to shake down her Catholic nobles - let them outwardly conform enough she was safe, but it's all helpful for the coffers.
I think it likely that ALL of these things affected the change in laws. At the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, she was not secure on the throne. She’s very pragmatic and knew extremism didn’t work for her sister so she advocated tolerance. There was always going to be unrest following an extreme shift in religion, but perhaps England would’ve been able to get that sorted if they were in a vacuum. But Mary, QOS, the pope’s excommunication, and the interference of Spain made that impossible. E knew how bad things could get for Protestants after seeing the slaughter in France, and it had to feel like the world was coming for England and their Protestants. I think she had no choice but to deal harshly to keep England out of war with herself on the throne, and by then she was secure enough to be effective at it.
“ I think she had no choice but to deal harshly to keep England out of war .”
Keeping England out of war was always foremost in mind …both for reasons of finance and for the stability of the realm.
Brilliant! I did not know that Walsingham witnessed the events in Paris....that explains a lot! I can't help thinking that this is analogous to the "Gaza" situation....
The fact of war is that, where there are valid enemy assets and plots, they become valid strategic targets, collateral damage be damned.
I don't think that Elizabeth's best intentions were altered (in her head and heart). Reality dictated otherwise. She wished that people would be responsibly devout whilst outwardly conforming "for the good of the kingdom". Many did exactly that.
Again, BRILLIANT, Dr. Kat (and don't forget Reginald Pole....I'm waiting with baited breath!).
“Reality dictated otherwise “ is absolutely on point. Elizabeth was a pragmatist at heart, which is perhaps unsurprising given her tumultuous and precarious upbringing.
Another great video 😊thank you!
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of that church. Their never-ending push to impose and maintain their theocratic rule over people whether they wanted it or not, continually made warfare and misery for ordinary people. Elizabeth preferred not to "have a window into" people's hearts, as to what they believed and how (and whether) they prayed. But the unending push to externalize belief and impose it on people in the form of theocratic rule made it more and more impossible to maintain tolerance. The Pope was to blame with his "bull" (so aptly termed), and trying to secretly infiltrate England with priests, and support Mary Queen of Scots to take over Elizabeth's throne. We see it today in America, with the "Christian" right demanding that laws and courts should impose their beliefs upon everyone, whether Christian or not. We see it in the tragedy of Israel and Palestine, and to women who suffer under fundamentalist Islamic government throughout the world. If people keep their practice of religion within their own minds and hearts, and don't try to get the government involved in it, we would have a much more peaceful and just world. I see no real future for the world as long as some religions feel they have the right to force their ways upon the rest of us.
Truth!
Agreed. Also, her own Council was very frustrated by her reluctance to criminalize/punish Catholic worship. She was very moderate in how she wanted to govern religion. I think seeing what Edward and Mary did during their reigns gave her a constant reminder of how quickly the realm descends into paranoia, chaos, and instability when a monarch takes to religious tyranny and also made her empathetic to those who believed differently.
Agreed, faith or being agnostic is a personal choice for many. Unfortunately there are people world wide trying to instil their “total obedience” to man-made rules regarding some faiths. Best wishes from Adelaide; South Australia🇦🇺💐
🧙♂️
All of these issues surely played a role, but it strikes me that Regnans in Excelsis was the turning point. It was a bone-headed move by Pius V. Everything I know about Elizabeth I indicates to me that she truly did only want only outward conformity, and she wanted social and political conformity. It was Pius V's papal bull that turned Roman Catholicism into a threat to Elizabeth personally, and to her government. Can you imagine what would have happened to England if Mary Stuart had taken the throne? 🙄She had shown such poor judgment during her short active reign on the Scottish throne that I'm surprised even the recusant English nobility would have even considered her a viable successor to a deposed Elizabeth.
Totally nailed it! Regnans in Excelsis was where it all started going downhill for recusants. What was Pius V thinking! And I have never thought about what an absolute disaster Mary Stuart would have been as Queen of England. That's a brilliant point about what the recusant nobility would have done.
I imagine they werent concerned with Mary's judgement because just like what happened in Scotland, they were going to substitute their own instead.
@@ashmeadowphoenix i second that thought.
6pm
I think that Pius V was the catalyst that changed Queen Elizabeth's policy . As to what Pius V was thinking , it was power and influence . He wanted England to become a Catholic power.
I love stories about Elizabeth I as she seems so real and human, unlike many figures of the past.🦁
Another great video! I'm not sure there was a single event that caused the shift in policy. I think Regnans in Excelis was the tipping point, but maybe not the last straw. Massive blunder by Pius V. Elizabeth may have worried a little bit about her own excommunication, but absolving the faithful of loyalty to their sovereign and at the same time threatening them with excommunication if they continued in that loyalty would have been extremely alarming. Still, Elizabeth continued to act in the prudent and measured way she always did in the wake of the Bull. It was obviously not good enough for Walsingham, who continued to goad her into taking additional measures against Catholics and against Mary. But it took another 15 or 16 years before Elizabeth finally signed Mary's death warrant.I do think St. Bartholomew was the last straw for Walsingham, and that he redoubled his effort to eliminate Mary and all Papists from that point onward.👑
Great topic for discussion!!
✝
I look forward to your posts every week. Might I suggest that you help us with some of the convoluted Elizabethan language in some of the transcripts 😊
As ever, thanks for posting. 👍
thank you for making these videos. perfect
Absolutely enjoy your videos. Thank you for your great content! 👸📃👼👼👼📃🧎🧎🧎👸
I always enjoy your videos. Thank you for the thoughtful and well-researched information, as well as your friendly manner of presenting. Always a joy!
Fascinating, thank you. In my humble opinion, just through observation across a lifetime, it is fear and a need for control. People are afraid of losing control in their lives, aristocrats are no different. To feel that control (in a universe which, essentially, wants us dead) people resort to religion for control over the unknown, money, knowledge and power for control over the known. At a time when religion was taking away their control and power those with it did their best to make sure they kept it, however slight their control, to avoid fear and used others' fears to control them. Of course, the more we have the more we fear losing. The same is happening today.
⛪️ 👑 📖 I think that in the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth wanted to be more lenient in her approach to religion because she did not want to alienate her subjects after the Catholic reign of her half sister, Mary. It was the numerous plots of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her Catholic supporters, along with the papal bull, that caused her to harden her resolve and assert her sovereign authority over the the religious life of her subjects.
I think that both Elizabeth and her ministers/advisers took it very seriously. We've emerged from a couple of centuries when "religion/faith" could be taken or left. Now we are again in an age when our own or other peopes faith and /or religion can seriously impact lives or even inflict death. A few words pointing out a rational fact or expressing pity at suffering can have us accused of hate crime,of supporting the T word,of being a disgusting human being no matter which "side" the words we have expressed feature. Elizabeth took to wearing a padded bodice and barely slept so aware was she of the danger of being stabbed by a figure in the shadows. I think current events relate us to that mindset.
Wonderful presentation!
Trauma runs deep. I can't see that not making a difference. ⚓❤
great episode
Good. I like educational details like this.
Your videos are always so interesting and educational.
Excited you are considering a Web-Course Dr. Kat!! 😊
Another enlightening and compelling video, Dr. Kat! Thank you so much. Your work has become one of the highlights of my Fridays and a great start to the weekend. 🇫🇷⛪️
I always wondered about people who were ill. Were they still required to attend church? Were they fined? Or were they allowed to skip it if they had a good reason?
👑🩸Another wonderfully presented video. Thank you.
I think Elizabeth would have preferred to leave people's religious consciences to themselves, before she discovered that too many would take advantage of that.
No comment or opinion, rather a (few) questions regarding the fines for non-attendance at church. Was this only for a head of household, everyone under his roof, only confirmed church members, or perhaps every baptized Christian? Answers gratefully received! 🙂
Dr. Kat. I love your take on history. Your insight into Elizabeth's reign are articulate, thoughtful and as I like to say open to discussion. Thank you.❤
I had not realised until today that Walsingham (AND wife and child) were in Paris for the St Barts day massacre. That clarifies a lot.
Yep, he was indeed. It was even depicted or mentioned in one of the films (or series) although I forget which one.
Thank you Dr Kat - a fascinating subject.
Amazing video as always. Would you ever cover how Halloween has transformed into what it is today, but by taking a look at it through the courtly lense of England?
Very interesting insight 😊❤
Thanks!
Really enjoy the content you cover! So thought provoking
Great video as always. 😁👑
Fascinating video, as usual, Dr. Kat.
❤👸🌟
Great video Dr kat! Lol I am still hoping for an alt hist vid on a surviving Henry Stuart 😅
I think Elizabeth saw what happened during Edwards reign and Marys and decided to avoid the same issues to choose a more middle road of acceptance and so long as her subjects honored her she let them worship God how ever they chose. I find her reign was very enlightened honestly.
Was just mentioning that her siblings' reigns had to have affected her greatly. If course the fear during Mary's but also the way the religious shifting destabilized the country. Elizabeth was always very in tune with how things affected the citizens. Some of that was self preservation but it has always seemed say least partially due to genuine care to me
thank you for bringing in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre - I studied this very question at school but did not come across this link; complicating things which I already know something about is my favourite aspect of your channel ☺
I think another interesting point is that so many of the plots against Elizabeth “depended” on a presumed general uprising by Catholics. As Dr. Kat points out, the financial penalties for being recusant for the poorest of her subjects were cost-prohibitive. Better for them to go along to get along. So they will stay on the sidelines. For the wealthy recusants, the fines were pocket change, so why risk participating in an uncertain rebellion, at a time of relative peace and prosperity ( given the religious chaos of Mary Tudor’s reign ) . They could still practice their faith and Pius put them in a position of risking life and fortune, without certain support. Had not read previously of Walsingham’s witness of the Huguenot massacre. That adds a new layer of complexity
It is tricky sometimes to put aside modern day thinking to Tudor (or when you are learning ) to judge things fairly
I think the Papal Bull was issued to try to bolster the rebellion to Elizabeth I. It pushed Elizabeth I to act more strenuously against the Pope and other rebellious noblemen. She knew having a queen on the throne showed her vulnerable to noblemen wishing a return to Roman Catholicism. It was a long, complex problem, and I don't think just one issue was the catalyst. Crossed swords 👑⚔️⛪️
I believe these episodes genuinely startled Elizabethand became pressure points for her councilors.😢
Thanks for another great topic! I think that people were extremely on edge and used to so many extremes in religious intolerance since Elizabeth's father and ripples of religious intolerance throughout Europe that it was going to be nearly impossible for Elizabeth to adopt a middle ground. Religious intolerance and violence was the only language they understood. I think if she had gone even further into religious tolerance, maybe people would have come round, the English Civil War might have even been avoided, or she would have been deposed in one way or another, perhaps by her own Protestants who didn't understand the concept of leaving their neighbors' beliefs to themselves. Do I think Elizabeth went too far? Yes. Just like her father, siblings, and all of Europe, yes. But I'm pinning the turn on Pius V seeing a chance in Mary Queen of Scots to get power and funds from England returned to Rome. 📸 ⚰
Thank you! I don’t thinking Elizabeth did anything unwillingly
Did any of Mary's foreign supporters take into consideration the decisively unsuccessful attempt of Mary Tudor to bring England back to the old religion? Backing a monarch who had made one poor political decision after another and then putting her in a position where good judgment and instincts would be paramount...? What were they thinking?
Love all the great history . Unfortunately I'm taking a break from TH-cam because of too many commercials
Yes, YT is really overdoing it lately.
I think Elizabeth’s real feelings were not “didn’t want to make windows”. She’s a women of her time. But she had the bad example of M1. Didn’t want to start her reign that way 😉
Great video! I particularly love this topic, as there are so many different factors at play, for E1 to consider, plus the pope and the English people.. She tried to take a tolerant position at the beginning of her reign, but unfortunately circumstances did not support it for the long term..
Wonderfully informative and thought provoking video! 🎉🎉🎉 I believe hands were forced to become more militant on both sides as neither was ever going to be completely happy until the ouster, if not eradication, of the other.
Was there a plot that Norfolk wasn’t part of? He reminds me of the guy in the “No Scrubs” song. 🧐
🌴 I was looking for an emoji that looked like a plot of land, but the best I can do is this palm tree. Thank you for your videos. You are appreciated.
The Dukes of Norfolk were always the spectre at the feast for the Tudors, powerful, the second family in the land after the royal family, and with family connections, not adverse to flexing their power and of course the most prominent Catholic family in the land
I’d love you to do a video about the family - their influence and mindset Thanks !
Thank you Dr Kat for this information. I think each event in turn lead to her change of heart. She must have felt that she was being to liberal in her early options. Especially after threats and attacks at home and abroad in this short span of time.
🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁🍂🍁
Happy Friday the 13th, History Lovers!! Solar Eclipse tomorrow!! I hope you get a chance to see it. Have a great weekend, History friends!!
A new fact about my home town.
I reckon all of these events influenced her to a degree. Most interesting topic, I’d love to have a conversation with her and ask all my questions!
I think that Elizabeth’s policies had to have been affected by all those events. Sadly, the Catholic Church was constantly attempting to replace her. 👑
I absolutely believe that all of these actions accumulated and moved Queen Elizabeth to be more stern on her stances of religion.
↖️⚔️✝️🐃📜👑📜🐃✝️⚔️↗️
Please do a lesson on Stephen Gardner in Tudor times.
I think that Elizabeth was consistent in her position: what was in the heart was (Unlike her half brother Edward) not her concern. As long as you paid the fines, you could believe what you wished (paying fines to continue to do what you wished was an established practice). However, after some tried to return England to Catholicism by force, the country had been attacked. Thus, even if she had wanted to ignore it, she couldn't. I believe her letters to Mary, Q of S, show that this continued to be her position.
Please more about the 1570's... This was a great dip... I'm trying to figure out what happened in the 1570's actions and pictures if possible... I Love You & your teaching's. You Share clear and very understandable 👍👍
I think the massacre, her excommunication and Walsingham were behind the change of heart. ⚔The way you spelled out the Ridolfi Plot conspirators made me think of The Usual Suspects. Norfolk. Again. 😁
I think she was prepared to be tolerant up until a point, when she first got on the throne. However, I think the reality of keeping power probably put paid to that and caused the change in policy. 👸 ✝️ 😢
How and why did Britain evolve from the absolute monarchy of Tudor times into a democracy today?
The English civil war and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 had a lot to do with it.
⚔I feel the biggest motivation for Elizabeth & her counselors would have been to avoid having their government overthrown. When they felt they could do this by allowing papists some wiggle room so they wouldn't feel as much need to rebel, they were more conciliatory. When they felt that papists with any wiggle room were likely to plot against them, they cracked down.
By giving a wink and a nod to the different plots, Mart sealed her fate. And her adherents, by not being circumspect, made the climate much, much worse. Though I am, arguably a supporter of the Scottish Queen, I have always thought everyone, on Mary's "side" acted as though their reason had fled their brains! They had to know Elizabeth would not look upon any of the machinations with favour. Just have to shake my head. And, sorry, I don't know how to affix a glyph. It would have been the Saltyre and a crown.
The reason I have asked all these questions is that I have hopes that you will devote future podcasts to all of them.I realize that I should pay for this major effort that I am requesting from you. But for several different reasons that I would prefer to discuss with you later I don't feel comfortable going into them in this space However, if you do deide to do podcasts on one or more of these suggested topics, I will find way of compensating you for your expenses. Many thanks for considering my requests.
Why and how is it that the one conflict that dedeviled England in Tudor times, The conflict between th English and the Irish, still plague both countries today?
💂Didja ever notice there's a guard emoji that looks like the folks who guard Chuck III's house?
Why would the Catholic Cosmo Medici, feel he had to warn the excommunicated Elizabeth of plot?⚔💣🐗❤🦁
Good question - perhaps he admired her regardless? Maybe he found the idea of deposition offensive? Could he have recognised the value of earn her trust and friendship?
That did surprise me. But was this before or after the rebellion that usurped them for a month but they got back in. If before it suggests that Cosimo believed in Rulers "right to rule,divine or not" and that good,capable,profit enabling rulers should be respected and not plotted against. He gets extra points from me.
It is my humble opinion that Elizabeth 1, at the start of her reign wanted her subjects to have religious peace. Religion and politics are power to be had over the people. Everyone wishes to have that power.
I think as Elizabeth was getting older she was tired of all the trouble’s religion caused and just wanted to make an end to such things. She tried to compromise and got nothing but pushback. So yes she had just had enough and made sure everyone knew it. Thus came the “I am the sovereign and what I say goes” period of her reign.
As a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, I’m sure the St Bartholomew’s 📖 😮Day Massacre would have spun me into high alert 🚨 & massacre-prevention mode. Especially if I were a Protestant queen in a catholic world. What a target Queen Bess became! 🎯 Best defense being a good offense, there’d be more than fines for skipping Anglican church on Sundays on my watch.
OMG OMG😊
You know, there were enough plotting and conspiracy characters in and out of Elizabeth’s life, that it would warrant a deck of cards. Who would be the Ace, Mary Queen of Scots, Phillip II, or Pope Pius V maybe. It would be interesting to see someone flush this idea out.
Oh, this sounds fun! I shall ponder on how to do something about this! Thank you ☺️
@ReadingthePast: I can’t think of anyone better equipped to tackle it than you.😉
A tudor rose for an emogie??
✨
✝️
For the algorithm!!
😊❤❤❤
💗
Roldofi: My lord I have a cunning plan.
Doing your best to take the middle ground, was a good political stance to take at the start of Elizabeth's reign. However, there are many who in Europe who would consider there was only one way to save a man's soul (and maybe women's and children's soul as well). That was following the roman church, so they would be willing to go to extremes. Extremes as seen in the inquisition. So a middle way didn't work and policy had to change. We have no window into the soul of Elizabeth I, only the decisions and writings of a well educated person brought up in the politics and religious verve of the time.
👏👏👏👏👏
📚📚📚
💔😥😢😢
Obviously that Regnans in Esxelsis was interpreted (realistically IMO) as a threat to Queen Elizabeth and her monarchy, even her country. 👑 Not sure how it would have been interpreted by the people as hadn't most of them converted to the Church of England by then? ⛪ So would ex-communication by their former Catholic church been seen as that great of a threat? Maybe a religiously scary time with what was going on with the Huguenots. Btw, I use that same website to convert money when doing my ancestry. This much money in 2017 could buy 10 horses etc lol.
👑
🙏
❤❤
What is the skull thingy behind your right shoulder? Sorry but I gotta know. Is it a sloth skull? Cat skull? 💀 🤔
(Edit: notice I tried to follow the directions, I included emojis for the algorithm or whatever 😬)
🌸
What I don’t get is how the Pope could excommunicate Elizabeth who was never a Catholic, neither were her Protestant people. Was he just that arrogant that he thought he could dictate international policy?
yes he did...after all he considered himself god's voice on earth!
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
❤