Accession of Queen Anne of England, Scotland and Ireland. Part III.

Tags

Ireland, James II-VII of England, King Charles II of England, Marie of Modena, Princess Anne, Privy Council, Roman Catholic Church, Scotland

When Charles II died in 1685, Anne’s father became King James II of England and Ireland and also King James VII of Scotland. To the consternation of the English people, James began to give Catholics military and administrative offices, in contravention of the Test Acts that were designed to prevent such appointments.

Anne shared the general concern, and continued to attend Anglican services. As her sister Mary lived in the Netherlands, Anne and her family were the only members of the royal family attending Protestant religious services in England. When her father tried to get Anne to baptise her youngest daughter into the Catholic faith, Anne burst into tears. “The Church of Rome is wicked and dangerous”, she wrote to her sister, “their ceremonies—most of them—plain downright idolatry.” Anne became estranged from her father and stepmother, as James moved to weaken the Church of England’s power.

In early 1687, within a matter of days, Anne miscarried, her husband caught smallpox, and their two young daughters died of the same infection. Lady Rachel Russell wrote that George and Anne had “taken [the deaths] very heavily … Sometimes they wept, sometimes they mourned in words; then sat silent, hand in hand; he sick in bed, and she the carefullest nurse to him that can be imagined.” Later that year, she suffered another stillbirth.

Public alarm at James’s Catholicism increased when his wife, Mary of Modena, became pregnant for the first time since James’s accession. In letters to her sister Mary, Anne raised suspicions that the Queen was faking her pregnancy in an attempt to introduce a false heir. She wrote, “they will stick at nothing, be it never so wicked, if it will promote their interest … there may be foul play intended.” Anne had another miscarriage in April 1688, and left London to recuperate in the spa town of Bath.

Anne’s stepmother gave birth to a son, Prince James Francis Edward on June 10, 1688, and a Catholic succession became more likely. Anne was still at Bath, so she did not witness the birth, which fed the belief that the child was spurious.

Anne may have left the capital deliberately to avoid being present, or because she was genuinely ill, but it is also possible that James desired the exclusion of all Protestants, including his daughter, from affairs of state. “I shall never now be satisfied”, Anne wrote to her sister Mary, “whether the child be true or false. It may be it is our brother, but God only knows … one cannot help having a thousand fears and melancholy thoughts, but whatever changes may happen you shall ever find me firm to my religion and faithfully yours.”

To dispel rumours of a supposititious child, James had 40 witnesses to the birth attend a Privy Council meeting, but Anne claimed she could not attend because she was pregnant (which she was not) and then declined to read the depositions because it was “not necessary”.

January 27, 1343: Pope Clement VI issues the Papal Bull Unigenitus Dei filius

Tags

Bishop of Rome, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Indulgences, Martin Luther, Papal Bull, Pope Clement VI, Protestant Reformation, Roman Catholic Church, Unigenitus Dei filius

Pope Clement VI (1291 – December 6, 1352), born Pierre Roger, was head of the Catholic Church from 7 May 1342 to his death in 1352. He was the fourth Avignon pope. Clement reigned during the first visitation of the Black Death (1348–1350), during which he granted remission of sins to all who died of the plague.

Pope Clement VI

Roger steadfastly resisted temporal encroachments on the Church’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction and, as Clement VI, entrenched French dominance of the Church and opened its coffers to enhance the regal splendour of the Papacy. He recruited composers and music theorists for his court, including figures associated with the then-innovative Ars Nova style of France and the Low Countries.

Like his immediate predecessors, Clement VI was devoted to France, and he demonstrated his French sympathies by refusing a solemn invitation to return to Rome from the city’s people, as well as from the poet Petrarch.

To placate the Romans, however, Clement VI issued the bull Unigenitus Dei filius on January 27, 1343, reducing the interval between one Great Jubilee and the next from 100 years to 50 years. In the document he elaborated for the first time the power of the pope in the use of indulgences.

In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from indulgeo, ‘permit’) is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as “a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and all of the saints”.

Martin Luther

This document would later be used by Cardinal Cajetan in the examination of Martin Luther and his 95 Theses in his trial at Augsburg in 1518. By then, Unigenitus was firmly fixed in Canon Law, having been added in the collection called Extravagantes.

Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians.

Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. He came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences.

Luther began by criticising the sale of indulgences, insisting that the Pope had no authority over purgatory and that the Treasury of Merit had no foundation in the Bible. The Reformation developed further to include a distinction between Law and Gospel, a complete reliance on Scripture as the only source of proper doctrine (sola scriptura) and the belief that faith in Jesus is the only way to receive God’s pardon for sin (sola fide) rather than good works.

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain

Luther proposed an academic discussion of the practice and efficacy of indulgences in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor.

The Reformation was the start of Protestantism and the split of the Western Church into Protestantism and what is now the Roman Catholic Church. It is also considered to be one of the events that signify the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern period in Europe.

Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformation curbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life.

January 17, 1463: Birth of Friedrich III the Wise, Elector of Saxony

Tags

Diet of Worms, Elector of Saxony, Frederick the Wise, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, Holy Roman Empire, Martin Luther, Pope Leo X, Protestant Reformation, Roman Catholic Church

Friedrich III (January 17, 1463 – May 5, 1525), also known as Friedrich the Wise, was Elector of Saxony from 1486 to 1525, who is mostly remembered for the worldly protection of his subject Martin Luther.

Born in Torgau, Friedrichbwas the son of Ernst, Elector of Saxony and his wife Elisabeth of Bavaria, daughter of Albrecht III, Duke of Bavaria and his wife Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, who was herself a daughter of Duke Eric I of Brunswick-Grubenhagen and his wife, Elisabeth of Brunswick-Göttingen.

Friedrich succeeded his father as elector in 1486; in 1502, he founded the University of Wittenberg, where Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon taught.

Friedrich was among the princes who pressed the need of reform upon Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, and in 1500, he became president of the newly formed council of regency (Reichsregiment).

Friedrich III was Pope Leo X’s candidate for Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 after the death of Emperor Maximilian I. The Pope had awarded him the Golden Rose of virtue on September 3, 1518 in an effort to persuade him to accept the throne. However, Friedrich III helped secure the election of Maximilian’s grandson Charles of Austria, who was also King Carlos I of Spain, Friedrich agreed to support Charles and to convince his fellow electors to do the same if Charles repaid an outstanding debt to the Saxons dating to 1497.

Friedrich collected many relics in his castle church; his inventory of 1518 listed 17,443 items, including a thumb from St. Anne, a twig from Moses’ burning bush, hay of the holy manger, and milk from the Virgin Mary.

Money was paid in order to venerate these relics and thus escape years in purgatory. A diligent and pious person who rendered appropriate devotion to each of these relics could merit 1,902,202 years worth of penance (an earthly equivalent of time otherwise spent in Purgatory, removed by indulgences). Two years later, the collection exceeded 19,000 pieces.

Friedrich is most known for ensuring that Martin Luther would be heard before the Diet of Worms in 1521 and secured an exemption from the Edict of Worms for Saxony. He further protected Luther from the Pope’s enforcement of the edict by faking a highway attack on Luther’s way back to Wittenberg, abducting and then hiding him at Wartburg Castle after the Diet of Worms.

Friedrich died unmarried at Lochau, a hunting castle near Annaburg (30 km southeast of Wittenberg), in 1525 and was buried in the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg with a grave by Peter Vischer the Younger. He was succeeded by his brother Duke Johann the Steadfast as Elector of Saxony.

Issue of conversion in 1525

Friedrich III was a lifelong Roman Catholic, but he might have converted to Lutheranism on his deathbed in 1525 depending on how his receiving of a Protestant communion is viewed. He leaned heavily towards Lutheranism throughout his later years, as demonstrated by his guaranteeing the safety for his subject and Protestant reformer Martin Luther when he was tried for heresy and excommunicated by the Pope.

Friedrich III took communion as outlined in Lutheranism on his deathbed. That can be seen as a conversion to Lutheranism, although he never officially or clearly indicated that he converted. By the time of his death, he was proclaimed to have “converted to the evangelical faith” and Saxony was now “evangelical”. His protection of Martin Luther and allowed Lutheranism to flourish in his realm, protecting him from the Holy Roman Emperor.

His successor, Johann, Elector of Saxony, had been Lutheran even before he became Elector. Johann made the Lutheran church the official state church in Saxony in 1527.

November 17, 1558: Death of Queen Mary I of England and Ireland

Tags

Bloody Mary, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, Henry VIII of England and Ireland, Mary I of England and Ireland, Mary Tudor, Philip II of Spain, Philip of Spain, Queen Mary’s Marriage Act, Roman Catholic Church

Mary I (February 18, 1516 – November 17, 1558), also known as Mary Tudor, and as “Bloody Mary” by her Protestant opponents, was Queen of England and Ireland from July 1553 until her death in 1558. She is best known for her vigorous attempt to reverse the English Reformation, which had begun during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. Her attempt to restore to the Church the property confiscated in the previous two reigns was largely thwarted by Parliament, but during her five-year reign, Mary had over 280 religious dissenters burned at the stake in the Marian persecutions.

Mary was born on February 18, 1516 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, England. She was the only child of King Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine of Aragon to survive infancy. Her mother had suffered many miscarriages. Before Mary’s birth, four previous pregnancies had resulted in a stillborn daughter and three short-lived or stillborn sons, including Henry, Duke of Cornwall.

Mary was the only child of Henry VIII by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, to survive to adulthood. Her younger half-brother, Edward VI, succeeded their father in 1547 at the age of nine. When Edward became mortally ill in 1553, he attempted to remove Mary from the line of succession because he supposed, correctly, that she would reverse the Protestant reforms that had taken place during his reign. Upon his death, leading politicians proclaimed Lady Jane Grey as queen.

Mary was—excluding the brief, disputed reigns of the Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey—England’s first Queen Regnant. Further, under the English common law doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband’s upon marriage, and it was feared that any man she married would thereby become King of England in fact and name.

While Mary’s grandparents Fernando II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile had retained sovereignty of their respective realms during their marriage, there was no precedent to follow in England. Under the terms of Queen Mary’s Marriage Act, Felipe was to be styled “King of England”, all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple, for Mary’s lifetime only.

England would not be obliged to provide military support to Felipe’s father in any war, and Felipe could not act without his wife’s consent or appoint foreigners to office in England. Feilpe was unhappy with these conditions but ready to agree for the sake of securing the marriage. He had no amorous feelings for Mary and sought the marriage for its political and strategic gains; his aide Ruy Gómez de Silva wrote to a correspondent in Brussels, “the marriage was concluded for no fleshly consideration, but in order to remedy the disorders of this kingdom and to preserve the Low Countries.”

To elevate his son to Mary’s rank, Emperor Charles V ceded to Felipe the crown of Naples as well as his claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mary thus became Queen of Naples and titular Queen of Jerusalem upon marriage. Their wedding at Winchester Cathedral on 25 July 1554 took place just two days after their first meeting. Felipe could not speak English, and so they spoke a mixture of Spanish, French, and Latin.

After Felipe’s visit in 1557, Mary again thought she was pregnant, with a baby due in March 1558. She decreed in her will that her husband would be the regent during the minority of their child. But no child was born, and Mary was forced to accept that her half-sister Elizabeth would be her lawful successor.

Mary was weak and ill from May 1558. In pain, possibly from ovarian cysts or uterine cancer, she died on November 17, 1558, aged 42, at St James’s Palace, during an influenza epidemic that also claimed Pole’s life later that day. She was succeeded by Elizabeth. Philip, who was in Brussels, wrote to his sister Joan: “I felt a reasonable regret for her death.”

Although Mary’s will stated that she wished to be buried next to her mother, she was interred in Westminster Abbey on December 14, in a tomb she eventually shared with Elizabeth. The inscription on their tomb, affixed there by James I when he succeeded Elizabeth, is Regno consortes et urna, hic obdormimus Elizabetha et Maria sorores, in spe resurrectionis (“Consorts in realm and tomb, we sisters Elizabeth and Mary here lie down to sleep in hope of the resurrection”).

After Mary’s death in 1558, her re-establishment of Roman Catholicism was reversed by her younger half-sister and successor, Elizabeth I.

Origins of the Holy Roman Empire. Conclusions

Tags

Carolingian Empire, Charles V, Emperor-Elect, Francis II, Golden Bull, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, King of Rome, Kingdom of Germany, Pope, Roman Catholic Church

The Imperial title

Another aspect of examining the origins of the Holy Roman Empire is to examine the history of the Imperial title itself. In other words, the history of the title gives us some understanding of the history of the empire itself.

The Holy Roman Emperor’s standard designation was simply, originally and officially “August Emperor of the Romans.” In Latin this was translated as “Romanorum Imperator Augustus.” In native German the title was translated as Kaiser der Römer.

Let me expand on this a little further. In German-language historiography, the term Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser (“Roman-German Emperor”) is used to distinguish the title from that of Roman Emperor on one hand, and that of German Emperor (Deutscher Kaiser) on the other, the title held by the Hohenzollern Emperors from 1871 until 1918.

The English term “Holy Roman Emperor” is modern shorthand for “Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire” and not corresponding to the actual historical style or title. In other words, the adjective “holy” is not intended as modifying “emperor.” The English term “Holy Roman Emperor” gained currency in the interbellum period (the 1920s to 1930s); formerly the title had also been rendered “German-Roman Emperor” in English.

The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the early modern period. Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire. The term sacrum (“holy”, in the sense of “consecrated”) in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Friedrich I Barbarossa. “Holy Empire”: was the term added to reflect Friedrich’s ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy. The form “Holy Roman Empire” is attested from 1254 onward.

In a decree following the Diet of Cologne in 1512, the name was changed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ), a form first used in a document in 1474. The new title was adopted partly because the Empire lost most of its territories in Italy and Burgundy to the south and west by the late 15th century, but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.

By the end of the 18th century, the term “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” fell out of official use. Contradicting the traditional view concerning that designation, Hermann Weisert has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it.

In a famous assessment of the name, the political philosopher Voltaire remarked sardonically: “This body which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

The title of emperor in the West implied recognition by the pope. It was the pope who had the power to create an emperor. But as the power of the papacy grew during the Middle Ages, popes and emperors came into conflict over church administration. The best-known and most bitter conflict was that known as the investiture controversy, fought during the 11th century between Heinrich IV and Pope Gregory VII.

The office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective, although frequently controlled by dynasties. As we have seen since 911, the various German princes had elected the King of the Germans, technically, King of East Francia, from among their peers. The King of the Germans would then be crowned as emperor following the precedent set by Charlemagne.

Beginning with the reign Heinrich II (1002–1024, emperor from 1014) the title King of the Romans (Latin: Rex Romanorum; German: König der Römer) was the title used by the German king following his election the mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire. Technically they would retain the title “King of the Romans”, until they were officially crowned emperor by the Pope. However, the Papacy’s hold over the emperor wained greatly after the Protestant Reformation as many states became officially Protestant despite the Habsburg emperors remaining Roman Catholic.

Charles V was the last emperor to be crowned by the pope, and his successor, Ferdinand I, merely adopted the title of “Emperor-Elect” in 1558. Despite holding the title Emperor-Elect and forgoing the papal coronation the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire were still simply referred to as emperor. As we began this blog entry, we have seen that the final Holy Roman emperor-elect, Franz II, abdicated in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars that saw the Empire’s final dissolution.

Having read its complex history I see the Carolingian Empire that began with Charlamagne as a “Frankish Empire” and was the first phase in the evolution of the Holy Roman Empire. This Frankish Carolingian Empire eventually died out in 924. Then, with the Revival of the Imperial title under Otto the Great, I view this act as a transition from Frankish Empire to the creation of a “German Empire” which is what came to define the Holy Roman Empire in its essense. As a Germanic Empire it helped foster and grow a diverse German culture signifying an important part of German history.

June 24, 1485: Birth of Elizabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg

Tags

Elector of Brandenburg, Elizabeth of Denmark, Hans of Denmark, Joachim I Nestor of Brandenburg, Protestant, Roman Catholic Church

Elizabeth of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden ( June 24, 1485 – June 10, 1555) was a Scandinavian princess who became Electress of Brandenburg as the spouse of Joachim I Nestor, Elector of Brandenburg. She was the daughter of King Hans of Denmark, Norway and Sweden and his spouse, Christina of Saxony.

As a child, Elizabeth had a close relation with her brother, the later King Christian II of Denmark. She was able to read and write in both Danish and German. On April 10, 1502 she married Joachim I Nestor, Elector of Brandenburg, in a double wedding alongside her uncle, the future king Frederick I of Denmark, and her sister-in-law Anna of Brandenburg. Elizabeth and Joachim got along quite well during the first twenty years of their marriage and co-existed harmoniously. She received her mother in 1507, attended her brother Christian’s wedding in 1515 and received Christian in 1523.

Her spouse was a pugnacious adherent of Roman Catholic orthodoxy during the Reformation. In 1523, she visited a sermon of Martin Luther with her brother and her sister-in-law and became a convinced Protestant. In 1527, she received the Protestant communion in public: this meant a public break with the Catholic Church, and caused a conflict with her husband. In 1528, her husband asked a clerical council from the Catholic Church if he should divorce, execute or isolate her if she refused to renounce her new conviction. The church council replied that he should have her imprisoned.

Elizabeth escaped to the court of her uncle, John, Elector of Saxony, and a public debate broke out: the Protestant monarchs and her brother supported her, Luther supported her freedom to leave her husband for her religion, and she declared that she would return only if she was allowed to keep her conviction and if her husband renounced his adultery and his interest in astrology. Otherwise, she suggested that they separate, referring to the separation of her own parents in 1504. She was given a residence near Wittenberg. Her husband refused to give her an allowance and forbade her sons to visit her. In 1532, her uncle died and her brother was imprisoned, and she thereby lost her supporters.

In 1535, her husband died and her sons asked her to return to Brandenburg, but changed their minds when she made the demand that the parishes in her dowry lands be made Protestant. She finally returned in 1545 and stayed in Spandau.

The marriage of her son Joachim II Hector, Elector of Brandenburg, to Hedwig Jagiellon did not satisfy Elizabeth. Catholic services were held for Hedwig in her private chapel, and the Dowager Electress was also unhappy because Hedwig could not speak German.

November 25, 1638: Birth of Catherine of Braganza, Queen Consort of England, of Scotland and of Ireland.

Tags

Catherine of Braganza, House of Braganza, John IV of Portugal, King Charles II of England, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, King Pedro II of Portugal, King William III and Queen Mary II, Kings and Queens of England, Regent of Portugal, Roman Catholic Church

Catherine of Braganza (November 25, 1638 – December 31, 1705) was queen consort of England, of Scotland and of Ireland from 1662 to 1685, as the wife of King Charles II.

Catherine was born at the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, as the second surviving daughter of John, 8th Duke of Braganza and his wife, Luisa de Guzmán. Following the Portuguese Restoration War, her father was acclaimed King John IV of Portugal, on December 1, 1640.

With her father’s new position as one of Europe’s most important monarchs, Portugal then possessing a widespread colonial empire, Catherine became a prime choice for a wife for European royalty, and she was proposed as a bride for Johann of Austria, François de Vendôme, duc de Beaufort, Louis XIV and Charles II.

The consideration for the final choice was due to her being seen as a useful conduit for contracting an alliance between Portugal and England, after the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 in which Portugal was arguably abandoned by France. Despite her country’s ongoing struggle with Spain, Catherine enjoyed a happy, contented childhood in her beloved Lisbon.

Negotiations for the marriage began during the reign of King Charles I, were renewed immediately after the Restoration, and on June 23, 1661, in spite of Spanish opposition, the marriage contract was signed. England secured Tangier (in North Africa) and the Seven Islands of Bombay (in India), trading privileges in Brazil and the East Indies, religious and commercial freedom in Portugal, and two million Portuguese crowns (about £300,000).

In return Portugal obtained British military and naval support (which would prove to be decisive) in her fight against Spain and liberty of worship for Catherine. She arrived at Portsmouth on the evening of May 13-14,1662, but was not visited there by Charles until 20 May 20, The following day the couple were married at Portsmouth in two ceremonies – a Catholic one conducted in secret, followed by a public Anglican service.

Owing to her devotion to the Roman Catholic faith in which she had been raised, Catherine was unpopular in England. She was a special object of attack by the inventors of the Popish Plot. In 1678 the murder of Edmund Berry Godfrey was ascribed to her servants, and Titus Oates accused her of an intention to poison the king.

These charges, the absurdity of which was soon shown by cross-examination, nevertheless placed the queen for some time in great danger. On November 28, Oates accused her of high treason, and the English House of Commons passed an order for the removal of her and of all Roman Catholics from the Palace of Whitehall.

Several further depositions were made against her, and in June 1679 it was decided that she should stand trial, which threat however was lifted by the king’s intervention, for which she later showed him much gratitude.

She produced no heirs for the king, having suffered three miscarriages. Her husband kept many mistresses, most notably Barbara Palmer, whom Catherine was forced to accept as one of her Ladies of the Bedchamber. By his mistresses Charles fathered numerous illegitimate offspring, which he acknowledged.

Catherine is credited with introducing the British to tea-drinking, which was then widespread among the Portuguese nobility.

At Charles’ final illness in 1685, she showed anxiety for his reconciliation with the Roman Catholic faith, and she exhibited great grief at his death. When he lay dying in 1685, he asked for Catherine, but she sent a message asking that her presence be excused and “to beg his pardon if she had offended him all his life.” He answered, “Alas poor woman! she asks for my pardon? I beg hers with all my heart; take her back that answer.

Catherine remained in England, living at Somerset House, through the reign of James and his deposition in the Glorious Revolution by William III and Mary II. She remained in England partly because of a protracted lawsuit against her former Lord Chamberlain, Henry Hyde, 2nd Earl of Clarendon, over money that she claimed as part of her allowance and that he claimed was part of the perquisite of his office. Catherine’s fondness for money is one of the more unexpected features of her character: her brother-in-law James, who was himself notably avaricious, remarked that she always drove a hard bargain.

Initially on good terms with William III and Mary II, her position deteriorated as the practice of her religion led to misunderstandings and increasing isolation. A bill was introduced to Parliament to limit the number of Catherine’s Catholic servants, and she was warned not to agitate against the government.

She finally returned to Portugal in March 1692. In 1703, she supported the Treaty of Methuen between Portugal and England. She acted as regent for her brother, Pedro II, in 1701 and 1704–05. She died at the Bemposta Palace in Lisbon on December 31, 1705 and was buried at the Monastery of São Vicente de Fora Lisbon

November 17, 1558: Death of Mary I, Queen of England and Ireland. Part III.

Tags

Bloody Mary, Elizabeth Tudor, False Pregnancy, Felipe II of Spain, Kings and Queens of England, Mary I of England, Mary Tudor, Philip II of Spain, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Reginald Pole, Roman Catholic Church

Furthering the Tudor conquest of Ireland, under Mary and Felipe’s reign English colonists were settled in the Irish Midlands. Queen’s and King’s Counties (now Counties Laois and Offaly) were founded, and their plantation began. Their principal towns were respectively named Maryborough (now Portlaoise) and Philipstown (now Daingean).

In January 1556, Mary’s father-in-law the Emperor abdicated. Mary and Felipe were still apart; he was declared King of Spain in Brussels, but she stayed in England. King Felipe II negotiated an unsteady truce with the French in February 1556. The following month, the French ambassador in England, Antoine de Noailles, was implicated in a plot against Mary when Sir Henry Dudley, a second cousin of the executed Duke of Northumberland, attempted to assemble an invasion force in France. The plot, known as the Dudley conspiracy, was betrayed, and the conspirators in England were rounded up. Dudley remained in exile in France, and Noailles prudently left Britain.

Felipe II returned to England from March to July 1557 to persuade Mary to support Spain in a renewed war against France. Mary was in favour of declaring war, but her councillors opposed it because French trade would be jeopardised, it contravened the foreign war provisions of the marriage treaty, and a bad economic legacy from Edward VI’s reign and a series of poor harvests meant England lacked supplies and finances.

War was only declared in June 1557 after Reginald Pole’s nephew, Thomas Stafford, invaded England and seized Scarborough Castle with French help, in a failed attempt to depose Mary. As a result of the war, relations between England and the Papacy became strained, since Pope Paul IV was allied with Henri II of France.

In August, English forces were victorious in the aftermath of the Battle of Saint Quentin, with one eyewitness stating “Both sides fought most choicely, and the English best of all.” Celebrations however, were brief, as in January 1558 French forces took Calais, England’s sole remaining possession on the European mainland. Although the territory was financially burdensome, its loss was a mortifying blow to the queen’s prestige. According to Holinshed’s Chronicles, Mary later lamented, “When I am dead and opened, you shall find ‘Calais’ lying in my heart”, although this may be apocryphal.

After her husband Felipe II’s visit in 1557, Mary again thought she was pregnant, with a baby due in March 1558. She decreed in her will that her husband would be the regent during the minority of their child. However, no child was born, and Mary was forced to accept that her half-sister Elizabeth would be her lawful successor. Mary was weak and ill from May 1558.

In pain, possibly from ovarian cysts or uterine cancer, she died on November 17, 1558, aged 42, at St James’s Palace, during an influenza epidemic that also claimed the life of Reginald Pole later the same day. She was succeeded by Elizabeth. Felipe II, who was in Brussels, wrote to his sister Joan: “I felt a reasonable regret for her death.”

Although Mary’s will stated that she wished to be buried next to her mother, she was interred in Westminster Abbey on December 14, in a tomb she would eventually share with Elizabeth. The Latin inscription on their tomb, Regno consortes et urna, hic obdormimus Elizabetha et Maria sorores, in spe resurrectionis (affixed there by James I when he succeeded Elizabeth), translates to: “Consorts in realm and tomb, we sisters Elizabeth and Mary here lie down to sleep in hope of the resurrection.”
Legacy

At her funeral service, John White, bishop of Winchester, praised Mary: “She was a king’s daughter; she was a king’s sister; she was a king’s wife. She was a queen, and by the same title a king also.” She was the first woman to successfully claim the throne of England, despite competing claims and determined opposition, and enjoyed popular support and sympathy during the earliest parts of her reign, especially from the Roman Catholics of England.

Mary’s attempts to undo the national religious reforms of her brother’s reign faced major obstacles. Despite her belief in the papal supremacy, she ruled constitutionally as the Supreme Head of the English Church, a contradiction under which she bridled.

Protestant writers at the time, and since, have often condemned Mary’s reign. By the 17th century, the memory of her religious persecutions had led to the adoption of her sobriquet “Bloody Mary”. John Knox attacked her in his First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558), and she was prominently vilified in Actes and Monuments (1563), by John Foxe. Foxe’s book remained popular throughout the following centuries and helped shape enduring perceptions of Mary as a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Mary is remembered in the 21st century for her vigorous efforts to restore the primacy of Roman Catholicism in England after the rise of Protestant influence during the previous reigns. Protestant historians have long deplored her reign, emphasizing that in just five years she burned several hundred Protestants at the stake. In the mid-20th century, H. F. M. Prescott attempted to redress the tradition that Mary was intolerant and authoritarian, and scholarship since then has tended to view the older, simpler assessments of Mary with increasing reservations.

A historiographical revisionism since the 1980s has to some degree improved her reputation among scholars. Christopher Haigh argued that her revival of religious festivities and Catholic practices was generally welcomed. Haigh concluded that the “last years of Mary’s reign were not a gruesome preparation for Protestant victory, but a continuing consolidation of Catholic strength.”

Catholic historians, such as John Lingard, thought Mary’s policies failed not because they were wrong but because she had too short a reign to establish them and because of natural disasters beyond her control. In other countries, the Catholic Counter-Reformation was spearheaded by Jesuit missionaries, but Mary’s chief religious advisor, Cardinal Reginald Pole, refused to allow the Jesuits into England.

Her marriage to King Felipe II of Spain was unpopular among her subjects and her religious policies resulted in deep-seated resentment. The military loss of Calais to France was a bitter humiliation to English pride. Failed harvests increased public discontent. Philip spent most of his time abroad, while his wife remained in England, leaving her depressed at his absence and undermined by their inability to have children.

After Mary’s death, Felipe II sought to marry Queen Elizabeth but she refused him. Although Mary’s rule was ultimately ineffectual and unpopular, the policies of fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonial exploration that were later lauded as Elizabethan accomplishments were started in Mary’s reign.

September 28, 235: Pope Pontian resigns.

Tags

Abdication, Antipope Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, Emperor Maximinius, Pope, Pope Demetrius, Pope Fabian, Pope Pontian, Resignation, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Emperor Serverus Alexander, Roman Empire

Pope Pontian (died October 235) was the Bishop of Rome from July 21, 230 to September 28, 235. In 235, during the persecution of Christians in the reign of the Roman Emperor Maximinus Thrax, Pontian was arrested and sent to the island of Sardinia.

Pope Pontian resigned to make the election of a new pope possible. When Pontian resigned on September 28, 235, he was the first pope to do so. It allowed an orderly transition in the Church of Rome and so ended a schism that had existed in the Church for eighteen years.

Life

A little more is known of Pontian than his predecessors, apparently from a lost papal chronicle that was available to the compiler of the Liberian Catalogue of the bishops of Rome, written in the 4th century. The Liber Pontificalis states that he was a Roman citizen and that his father’s name was Calpurnius. Early church historian Eusebius wrote that his pontificate lasted six years.

Pontian’s pontificate was initially relatively peaceful under the reign of the tolerant Roman Emperor Severus Alexander. He presided over the Roman synod which approved Origen’s expulsion and deposition by Pope Demetrius I of Alexandria in 230 or 231.

According to Eusebius, the next emperor, Maximinus, overturned his predecessor’s policy of tolerance towards Christianity. Both Pope Pontian and the Antipope Hippolytus of Rome were arrested and exiled to labor in the mines of Sardinia, generally regarded as a death sentence.

In light of his sentence, Pontian resigned, the first pope to do so, so as to allow an orderly transition in the Church of Rome, on September 28, 235. This date was recorded in the Liberian Catalogue and is notable for being the first full date of a papal reign given by contemporaries.

This action ended a schism that had existed in the Church for eighteen years. Pontian was beaten to death with sticks. Neither Hippolytus nor Pontian survived, possibly reconciling with one another there or in Rome before their deaths. Pontian died in October 235.

Veneration

Pope Fabian had the bodies of both Pontian and Hippolytus brought back to Rome in 236 or 237, and the former buried in the papal crypt in the Catacomb of Callixtus on the Appian Way. The slab covering his tomb was discovered in 1909. On it is inscribed in Greek: Ποντιανός Επίσκ (Pontianus Episk; in English Pontianus Bish). The inscription “Μάρτυρ”, “MARTUR” had been added in another hand.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church and the General Roman Calendar of 1969, Pontian and Hippolytus are commemorated jointly on August 13. In those Catholic communities which use a historical calendar such as the General Roman Calendar of 1960, Pontian’s feast day is celebrated on November, 19.

Was Lady Jane Grey a legitimate Queen of England and Ireland?

Tags

Catherine of Aragon, Felipe II of Spain, King Henry VIII of England, Lady Jane Grey, Queen Mary I of England, Roman Catholic Church, Third Succession Act, Treason Act, Usurper, Wyatt’s Rebellion

When reading the lists of the Kings and Queens of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, there can be discrepancies regarding the reign of Lady Jane Grey; some will list her as a legitimate Queen of England and some will not.

The question I am examining is whether or not Lady Jane Grey can be considered a legitimate Queen of England and Ireland or should she be considered a usurper? The issue at hand is there is no authoritative body to judge either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jane’s 9 day reign. Therefore it is open to interpretation and historians have been debating this for many, many years.

I am just another voice in this chorus of historians debating this issue. I will state my case in this post to why I don’t believe that Jane Grey was the legal successor to King Edward VI.

Lady Jane Grey

My basic foundational premise is that England was and is a Kingdom ruled by laws and it is upon the interpretation of the laws and statutes in effect at the time of Edward VI’s death which forms my opinion on the legitimacy of Janes position as Queen.

When Edward VI died on July 6, 1553 at the age of 15 the Third Act of Succession was still the law of the land, and so was the 1547 Act of Treason. This means that both Mary and Elizabeth were still the legal heirs to their brother Edward.

The motive for Edward VI’s attempt at altering the succession was that the king’s death and the succession of his Catholic half-sister Mary would jeopardise the English Reformation, and Edward’s Council and officers had many reasons to fear it. Edward himself opposed Mary’s succession, not only on religious grounds but also on those of legitimacy and male inheritance, which also applied to his sister Elizabeth. Edward VI composed a draft document, headed “My devise for the succession”, in which he undertook to change the succession, most probably inspired by his father Henry VIII’s precedent. The provisions to alter the succession directly contravened Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543 and have been described as bizarre and illogical.

In early June of 1553 Edward VI personally supervised the drafting of a clean version of his devise (his Will altering the succession) by lawyers, to which he lent his signature “in six several places.” Then, on June 15, he summoned high ranking judges to his sickbed, commanding them on their allegiance “with sharp words and angry countenance” to prepare his devise as Letters Patent and announced that he would have these passed in Parliament.

However, before his Letters Patent could be passed by Parliament and receive the Royal assent, Edward died. Edward’s failure to have his Letters Patent passed by an Act of Parliament meant that The Treason Act, which made it high treason to change the line of succession to the throne, and the Third Act of Succession, we’re still the law of the land. Of course as king, Edward VI could have had both the Third Act of Succession and the Treason Act replaced with new laws, but since he died prior to accomplishing that requirement that means his sister Mary was the legal Queen per the terms of the Third Succession Act.

Let me restate what these two acts were. The Third Succession Act of King Henry VIII’s reign, passed by the Parliament of England in July 1543, returned his daughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of the succession behind their half-brother Edward.

Edward VI, of England and Ireland

The Act was formally titled the Succession to the Crown Act 35 Hen. 8 c.1, and is also known as the Act of Succession 1543. The royal assent was given to this bill in the spring of 1544 at the conclusion of the 1543/1544 Parliament, but until 1793 acts were usually backdated to the beginning of the session of Parliament in which they were passed. (The Act is also often dated 1544.)

The Treason Act 1547 made it high treason to interrupt the line of succession to the throne established by the Act of Succession. Edward VI meant to bypass this Act in his “Devise for the Succession”, issued as Letters Patent on June 21, 1553, in which he named Lady Jane Grey as his successor. Prevailing over Lady Jane Grey, Mary ascended the throne under the terms of the Third Succession Act.

There is an interesting issue that the Third Act of Succession and the Treason Act 1547 did restore Mary and Elizabeth’s succession right but they did not restore their legitimacy.

The Third Succession Act superseded the First Succession Act (1533) and the Second Succession Act (1536), whose effects had been to declare bastards Henry’s daughters Mary and Elizabeth, and to remove them from succession to the throne. This new act returned both Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession behind Edward, any potential children of Edward, and any potential children of Henry by his then wife, Catherine Parr, or any future wife Henry might have.

Mary I, Queen of England and Ireland

With the 1536 Act, Mary and Elizabeth, who had both been declared illegitimate and incapable to inherit, expressly remained illegitimate in the 1543/44 Act; they were only capacitated to succeed to the Crown (with several provisos, such as they could not marry without the Privy Council’s approval). This meant that the place in the succession of Mary and Elizabeth remained doubtful. Henry’s actual will (1547) simply confirmed their position as outlined in the 1543/44 statute.

Therefore Mary and Elizabeth’s right to accede to the throne is accepted by most as fact, but actually, this could be disputed. Under English law at this time, only legitimate children could inherit the throne. Mary had been declared illegitimate by her father Henry VIII after he proclaimed his marriage to Mary’s mother, Katherine of Aragon, invalid. Likewise, Elizabeth Tudor, half-sister to Edward and Mary, had also been declared illegitimate after Henry VIII declared that his marriage to her mother, Anne Boleyn, had also been invalid.

However, this all seems like a moot point in 1553. For after Mary entered London and Jane was arrested, Parliament declared Mary the rightful successor and denounced and revoked Jane’s proclamation as Queen of England and labeled her position as that of a usurper. In my view this Act of Parliament along with the fact that Edward never legalized his Letters Patent through an Act of Parliament is enough reason to view Jane as not the legitimate successor to Edward VI but as a usurper…albeit a puppet or pawn of those using her.

Also the question of Mary’s legitimacy is another moot point as evidenced by her Spanish marriage.

At age 37, Mary turned her attention to finding a husband and producing an heir, which would prevent the Protestant Elizabeth (still next-in-line under the terms of Henry VIII’s will and the Act of Succession of 1544) from succeeding to the throne. Edward Courtenay and Reginald Pole were both mentioned as prospective suitors, but her cousin, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V suggested she marry his only son, Prince Felipe of Spain.

Felipe II, King of Spain

Lord Chancellor Gardiner and the House of Commons unsuccessfully petitioned her to consider marrying an Englishman, fearing that England would be relegated to a dependency of the Habsburgs. The marriage was unpopular with the English; Gardiner and his allies opposed it on the basis of patriotism, while Protestants were motivated by a fear of Catholicism. When Mary insisted on marrying Felipe, insurrections broke out. Thomas Wyatt the younger led a force from Kent to depose Mary in favour of Elizabeth, as part of a wider conspiracy now known as Wyatt’s rebellion, which also involved the Duke of Suffolk, the father of Lady Jane. This rebellion sealed the fate of Lady Jane and her husband.

Mary declared publicly that she would summon Parliament to discuss the marriage, and if Parliament decided that the marriage was not to the advantage of the kingdom, she would refrain from pursuing it. After The Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Felipe of Spain or Queen Mary’s Marriage Act (1 Mar. Sess. 3 c. 2) was passed by the Parliament of England in April 1554, their wedding at Winchester Cathedral on July 25, 1554 took place just two days after their first meeting. Felipe could not speak English, and so they spoke in a mixture of Spanish, French, and Latin.

My point in stating the history of her marriage suggests that the Spanish Government, along with Emperor Charles V and Felipe of Spain, did not view her as illegitimate. Indeed, being a strongly Catholic country all involved would not have sanctioned such a union if Mary carried the taint of illegitimacy. Further, now enthroned as Queen this did place the Catholic Church back in power in England and according to the Church Mary was legitimate as the legal offspring of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and never recognized their divorce and Mary being a bastard.

Jane Grey is seen as a tragic figure and she certainly was. “The traitor-heroine of the Reformation”, as historian Albert Pollard called her, was only 16 or 17 years old at the time of her execution. During and in the aftermath of the Marian persecutions, Jane became viewed as a Protestant martyr for centuries, featuring prominently in the several editions of the Book of Martyrs (Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Dayes) by John Foxe.

Incidentally, There is no proven contemporary portrait of Lady Jane Grey that survives.