Who opposed the Reformation before 1536? How did they oppose it and why? Why were they destroyed? Why was there not more opposition?

Opponents Why they were ‘dangerous’ and why they were destroyed.

Catherine of Aragon - and the so-called ‘Aragonese faction’.

Catherine was the first to oppose the king. The daughter of the most powerful monarchs in Europe, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile (a monarch in her own right), she had received a classical education and had been brought up with expectations which had survived the death of her first husband in 1501, and a long period of virtual imprisonment in Durham House in London whilst Henry VII and Ferdinand wrangled over her dowry. After 1507 she served as the first female ambassador in European history and refused to be manipulated by Henry VII whose second son was granted a dispensation from the pope to allow him to marry his brother’s widow, which he did in 1509. Her leadership qualities were demonstrated during Henry’s absence in France in 1512-13 when she ruled the kingdom alone and oversaw a decisive victory over the Scots at Flodden. Catherine had a daughter, Mary, in 1516 but did not produce the male heir Henry craved and, after 18 years of marriage, he informed her of his plans for a divorce in 1527.

Born and educated to rule, Queen of England and successful in battle, Catherine resisted Henry ’s plans not least because divorce would bastardise her daughter whom she had educated as a future queen and who she believed could rule England much as her mother had ruled Aaragon or who could at least provide a grandson to ensure a continuation of the Tudor dynasty (whose own claim, after all, had descended through Margaret of Beaufort). Moreover, Henry’s case for annulment depended upon her having slept with his brother - something that she had always denied and was therefore not about to acknowledge now.

Catherine refused to enter a monastery and resisted Henry’s plans by appealing to Rome and enlisting her nephew, Charles V in support. The imperial ambassador, Chapuys kept Charles V informed of the developments in England from 1529 and had contact with John Fisher and other opponents. The question of whether there was an Aragonese ‘faction’ is really a question of how far there was a ‘conspiracy’ among these individuals working together towards a common goal. Whilst there is evidence that isolated opponents would have liked to have seen Catherine restored, and saw her as the hope for restoring the link with Rome, there is little or no evidence of collaboration in planning and executing such a restoration. Although Catherine herself discouraged talk of invasion from abroad, she represented a threat to the king so long as she lived.

As punishment for her resistance, Henry prevented Catherine from seeing her daughter for the last five years of her life. On Catherine’s death at Kimbolton Castle to which she had been banished in 1535 - known for its bad air and disease - in January 1536, Henry and Anne dressed from head to foot in yellow, and celebrated with jousting, dancing and a banquet. Her death removed a threat and opened the possibility of restoring English alliance with the Emperor against the traditional enemy of France. But whatever Henry may have

1

believed in January 1536, Catherine’s death did not kill the hopes of religious conservatives who now looked to Mary for leadership.

Elizabeth Barton, Elizabeth Barton, ’The Holy Maid of Kent’, became nationally famous by 1525, for her vision of the Virgin Mary. She was sent to a nunnery and came under the spiritual guidance of Dr Edward Bocking. In1527, as the king went public with his matrimonial doubts, she emerged again into the public eye, this time uttering prophecies about what would happen to king and country if Henry proceeded in his attempt to annul his marriage. Those who wished to pressure the King into continuing the marriage with Catherine saw an opportunity to make use of Barton’s cult so that by 1528 she was invited to a private meeting with Wolsey and had two separate meetings with Henry VIII shortly afterwards.

She was supported or at least taken seriously by members of the senior clergy, including John Fisher and archbishop William Warham who had shown signs of compliance with royal plans in the divorce before his encounter with the Maid in 1531. In late 1530 and early 1531 Henry’s hopes of enlisting Warham to grant his divorce were not unrealistic. it is possible that Warham’s encounter with the Maid led him to take a more conservative line.

Barton had a strong local following. Her later prophecies were chiefly exhortations against the King’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. She railed against the King in person when he visited Canterbury. In 1532 she prophesied that Henry were to divorce Catherine he would soon die. When this prophecy was not fulfilled she modified her stance to say that the King was no longer accepted as King by God. She met with imperial and Papal ambassadors and the obstinacy of the bishop of Rochester was strengthened by her revelations. In 1533 Edward Bocking attempted to publish copies of The Nun’s Book, a collection of Barton’s prophecies.

She and her immediate supporters were sent to the Tower in November 1533 to be executed along with 4 of her adherents. Her role was symbolic - both for her supporters and for Henry, who had her executed, along with 4 of her adherents, on the 21st of April 1534, the same day that Londoners were required to swear the Oath of Succession.

2

John Fisher The Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher was a humanist scholar respected across Europe, a former chaplain to Margaret Beaufort and an outspoken supporter of queen Catherine, defending her at Blackfriars in 1529 but also speaking out against the King’s divorce plans beforehand. He was in contact with the Emperor Charles V’s ambassador Chapuys, even urging Charles V to military intervention on several occasions (but unknown to Henry).

Fisher’s opposition was not confined to the King’s divorce, however. In 1529 he spoke out against the anti-clerical measures taken by parliament - particularly those concerning probate of wills, accusing the Commons of being driven by greed. Fisher was one of the 15 clergymen accused of praemunire at the end of 1530, and after the charge was broadened to include the whole clergy he was - according to his biographer - instrumental in getting the words ‘in so far as the law of Christ allows’ appended to Henry’s title, ‘Supreme Head of the Church in England’, which the clergy were asked to accept in May 1531. Therefore, already by 1531, Fisher had openly opposed the divorce, opposed parliamentary reforms of the clergy and had rallied the episcopacy in opposition to the king’s demands, which he continued to do in the 1533 Convocation where he was the only bishop to speak out against the annulment, and again in 1534 when he spoke out against measures relating to Peter’s Pence (January) and Dispensations (March).

In Autumn 1533 he was arrested under a bill of Attainder for his support of Elizabeth Barton. In early 1534 Henry let him off the hook with a fine of £300, perhaps as a consequence of Fisher’s status and standing. It was one thing to send a Kentish prophetess to the scaffold but

In April 1534 he refused the Oath of Succession but later offered to swear to the succession but not to the Supremacy. Henry would not compromise. In late 1534 an Act of Attainder was passed declaring Fisher and others guilty of misprision (concealment) of Treason. He was deprived of his bishopric on 2nd January 1535.

In 1535 he admitted to publishing seven or eight books against the King’s divorce. Some of this was accomplished with the help of Spaniards who took the manuscripts abroad. Fisher was eventually convicted on the evidence of Richard Rich who - according to one source - tricked Fisher into revealing his true opinion of the Supremacy. The real reason for the timing of his conviction and execution in July 1535, however, was the pope’s decision to make Fisher a cardinal on May 20th, 1535.

3

Thomas More Humanist, scholar of international renown and influence; More was regarded by Henry as a friend and had him appointed Lord Chancellor after the fall of Cardinal Wolsey in 1529. Legally trained, More was an obvious successor to Wolsey but his difference with the King on the matter of the divorce made his appointment surprising. More accepted on condition that he did not have to become directly involved in the Great matter. Unlike Fisher, he was not an outspoken opponent of the king’s divorce, but he did write in defence of church laws after his retirement as Lord Chancellor. In his maiden speech to parliament as Lord Chancellor in Autumn 1529, More spoke against Wolsey. In March 1531 he made a parliamentary speech in which he presented university opinions in favour of the divorce, and affirmed that Henry was acting in good faith - on his conscience rather than out of love for another woman. Whatever More may have said to Henry before his appointment, it would seem that More’s problem was not so much with the divorce itself but with the implications it would later have for the church.

It was only following the submission of the clergy (15th May 1532), that More retired from public life. Since no one in this period could simply ‘resign’ from the service of the king, More’s representation of this matter was bound to provoke a reaction from the king. More’s decision to decline the Invitation to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn (1st June 1533), was further provocation. More was accused of conspiring with Elizabeth Barton, whom he met, but he escaped attainder on this occasion by producing a letter in which he had told Barton not to interfere in state matters. His behaviour in relation to Barton suggests that More was not implacably opposed to the divorce or to his new marriage because he refused to listen to her on political matters.

Like John Fisher, More refused to swear the Oath of Succession (April 1534), but unlike Fisher, did not give a reason. However, he had engaged in polemic against Christopher St Germain in defence of church laws after 1531. The problem for More was not the marital issue, but the issue of supremacy which was implied by the Oath of Succession. Like Fisher, he later agreed to swear a differently-worded oath to accept the succession but not the Supremacy. Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons, presents More as an individual making a heroic stand in defence of his conscience against a tyrannical king. But to think of More as defender of the principle of freedom of conscience is anachronistic - and very far from the truth, since More himself hunted, tried and burned protestant heretics who presumably died for the sake of their conscience. Nor did More die for the principle of papal supremacy - as is often thought. In fact, More shared misgivings about papal claims with other humanists. What More objected to was the decision to divide the English church from the rest of Christendom. More located the authority of the church in its general councils which affirmed that the pope was the head of the body. To deny this would be to break away from the body of the church - the body of Christ itself.

According to the law, even according to the new Treason Act of 1334 (which came into force in February 1535), More could not be found guilty of treason because he had never ‘maliciously’ denounced the king’s title as Supreme Head of the church of England. The law as it stood could only imprison him indefinitely for refusing to take the oath. More lingered in prison for over a year, and then, on July 1st 1535 was brought to trial. Evidence against him was given by Richard Rich, Solicitor-General, who treacherously stated that when he had visited More in his cell on June 12th, More had spoken against the oath, stating that ‘Parliament could not make the King Supreme Head of the church.’ More strenuously denied speaking out against the oath, but the jury was rigged. Henry saw More as a political enemy,

4

but More was less an opponent of Henry than a defender of Christendom. More was a symbol of dissent, however, and it was for this, and for personal revenge, that More followed Fisher to the scaffold.

Observant Franciscans Open and public defiance of the king’s divorce came first from within the Observant Franciscans (of which there were six houses in England - including Greenwich). The Observant Friars were dangerous to Henry in part because, as itinerant preachers, they could spread the word of dissent throughout the kingdom. However, their real danger was symbolic, mainly because of their relationship with the Tudor dynasty. Their flourishing in England was almost entirely the work of Royal patronage. Observant Friars had provided kings and queens with spiritual advisers, confessors and preachers. They were meant to reflect the crown’s awareness of the best practice within the church. Henry himself was baptised in a house next to the royal palace at Greenwich in 1491; and he in turn had had his children christened in the friars’ churches: his son at Richmond in January 1511, Mary at Greenwich in February 1516 and, as if to ram home a point, Elizabeth at Greenwich in September 1533.

It was the very proximity of the Observant Franciscans to the crown that must have made their opposition all the more insulting and threatening when it first emerged in March 1532. At Greenwich on Easter Sunday (the central holy day of the Christian calendar), William Peto, who had been warden at Richmond (next to the Tudor family palace), preached a sermon before the king which denounced the king’s plans for a divorce. In private, Peto also told the king to his face that he had meddled with Anne Boleyn’s sister and even her mother (with whom Henry was rumoured to have lost his virginity)!

Peto was later imprisoned in Lambeth Tower (May 1532) before he was released and sent into exile. In June 1533, Cromwell learned that Peto along with other Observants Franciscans from England were at Antwerp writing books against the King’s great matter, and were also importing into England a book printed there by Bishop Fisher. Moreover, Thomas More had sent them his books against Tyndale and other heretics.

Within England, there were other Observants who dared to speak out, including two Newark friars who went on a preaching tour of the West Country before arrest in the middle of 1534 ()when they dropped their opposition almost at once. Two other Observants, Hugh Rich and Richard Risby, became active in spreading the revelations of the Holy Maid. Several Observant Franciscans were therefore among the most active of those who declined to follow the king on the divorce.

The Oath of Succession imposed on the Observants in 1534 was different from that imposed upon every other adult in the realm. They were to swear to preach and persuade the people of England at every opportunity of their allegiance to the king and his queen. They were to make a new profession of obedience to the king rather than to the bishop of Rome. Refusal would then be punished as treason.

5

At Canterbury only two refused, but elsewhere there was greater reluctance. Henry’s response was to effectively abolish the order and disperse the monks. In June 1534, two carts of friars were taken to the Tower. Chapuys reported in late August that all of the Observants had been driven out of their monasteries; many had died in custody; some had escaped into exile and the rest had either complied or were imprisoned. But there was no general protest in England at their treatment. Despite the active nature of their opposition, their threat was less political than symbolic and their resistance did not amount to conspiracy.

Carthusian (Charterhouse) monks

The Carthusian monks of the London Charterhouse had been spiritual advisers to both Henry VII and Henry VIII. They were the strictest of all monastic orders and regarded as the most holy. If monasteries came in for much criticism in the 16th century, the Carthusians were considered - before 1534 - as above reproach. Once again, they were supposed to represent the very best practices of Christian piety and this was the reason that the crown cultivated its relationship with them. Representing the spiritual elite, therefore, there were just 9 houses, with some 170 monks in England.

The monks of the Chartherhouses were just as reluctant as the Observants to accept the break with Rome but their opposition emerged slightly later. In spring 1534, the Charterhouse monks were asked to the take the oath of succession and on the face of it, they complied but insisted on insertion of the clause ‘in so far as it was lawful’. Henry insisted that they be made to swear new oaths without any insertions and at this point they refused. As a result, ten London Charterhouse monks were sent to Newgate on 20th April 1535. Three priors - Houghton, Lawrence and Webster, together with Richard Reynolds and John Hale of the Bridgettine nunnery of Syon, were executed at Tyburn, having refused a last-minute pardon if they agreed to change their minds. According to a foreign reporter, the hangman cut out their bowels and burned them while they were still alive; they were then beheaded and quartered. Moreover, this punishment was meted out one-by-one, so that each of the condemned had to witness the sufferings of the others. Their heads were then cut off, boiled, covered with Tar and displayed on London bridge.

A further three monks - Middlemore, Exmere and Newdigate - were convicted and executed in June. Further delays and refusals led to more action in September 1536 and again in May 1537 where a further 10 were imprisoned, 9 of whom died of starvation and the last executed at Tyburn in August 1540. In a period of 3 years, 18 members of the Charterhouse were either executed or starved to death.

Many Carthusians - including leaders of the order - refused to accept the royal supremacy in 1535 and beyond. But the opposition was not united. In some houses the priors dissented to the point of death, though not all their monks agreed; in others, priors conformed but several of their monks grumbled. The victims were executed not so much for what they had done but for what they hadn’t done. They had been required to swear a series of oaths committing them to the royal supremacy, and in the end many of them found themselves unable to do so, but it seems unlikely that, if left alone, they would have done anything to oppose the king. Like More, their opposition was entirely passive.

6

Syon Syon was the wealthiest nunnery and the 10th richest house in England (valued at £1731 p.a.), it was founded for sixty nuns and twenty five monks who were to serve as their spiritual directors. Once again, it was the reputation for spirituality and purity that made Syon’s opposition to King potentially damaging.

A monk there, Richard Reynolds declared in April 1535 that he could not take the oath to accept the king as supreme head of the church and told the chancellor who had been interrogating him, that the larger part of the kingdom was with him, and went only with the king because of fear or greed. He was executed on 4th May 1535 along with the Carthusian priors Houghton, Lawrence and Webster. But this was not the end of the matter. Again, there was clear disquiet at Syon that was only resolved through a combination of persuasion and intimidation by 1537.

There were links between Syon, the Holy Maid (who stayed at Syon after her revelations first became public), John Fisher - who sent his books to Syon - and other opponents such as Sir George Throckmorton, an opponent in the commons who sought the advice of Syon and Charterhouse monks. Despite these connections among the opponents, however, the lack of consistent resistance, and the absence of any attempt to persuade others of their position makes this another unlikely candidate centre of conspiracy. The mutual support with other opponents was precisely that and no more - it was about offering spiritual consolation rather than organising political opposition. Once again, it was the symbolic impact that made Syon a danger to the king.

Other bishops There is little doubt that Fisher’s opposition would have had a more profound effect had he been joined by the senior clergy - his fellow bishops. There is plenty of evidence of misgivings and some opposition, but no one was prepared to take this as far as Fisher did.

William Warham, for example, issued a formal protest against all enactments in parliament in derogation of the pope’s authority or the ecclesiastical prerogatives of his province. This resulted in charge of praemunire which Warham rebutted successfully. In the course of his defence, Warham warned Henry that he would incur divine punishment just Henry II, Edward II, Richard II and Henry IV, and even compared himself with Thomas Becket. Yet in May, Warham acquiesced in Convocation’s acceptance of Henry’s title as Head of the Church. Once again, Warham became an instrument of the King’s will.

Cuthbert Tunstal, promoted from bishop of London to bishop of Durham in 1530s, represented a complex case. Tunstall had opposed the submission of the clergy in 1532 led to the ransacking of his episcopal palace for letters or books that might incriminate him. He was persuaded to take the oath in 1534 and deputed to speak directly to Catherine herself.

When Henry formally broke with Rome and called on bishops to sear to the succession, only Fisher refused. By 1533-4 he had appointed several new biceps - including Cranmer, Tunstal (who had reservations), Stephen Gardiner, Stokesly and Clerk who were steadfast in their support. There were clearly widespread doubts but

7

Fisher’s episcopal colleagues were neither intellectually nor emotionally ready for acts of collective defiance. The oaths of 1534-35 compelled bishops to declare themselves for the king - or to risk their lives. They had already acquiesced in the praemunire charges against Wolsey in 1529 - as preposterous as this was - the king’s demands over praemunire against the whole clergy in 1531 and the submission of the clergy in 1532.

The nobility, parliament and the people

The most prominent nobleman, Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk, may well have had his doubts. He was certainly a religious conservative, but as the king’s leading ministers following Wolsey’s downfall, was not about to risk everything by opposing the king on this matter. Similarly, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, was Henry’s friend, brother-in-law and a first-generation duke made by Henry himself. He may well have hated the reforms but was hardly likely to oppose.

William Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, was reported by Chapuys as opposing - alone among the nobility - the Annates bill of March 1532. Henry had gone to parliament 3 times to intimidate and make clear that to oppose this bill was to oppose him personally, so Arundel’s opposition is remarkable. A few noblemen and women close to Catherine were clearly upset by events, but whenever it mattered, the nobility went along with all that the king did.

Within a few years, however, Lord Darcy and Lord Hussey (neither present in parliament in 1534) would be executed for their part in the Pilgrimage of Grace, and Lord Montagu and the marquess of Exeter for treason). But for the most part, the nobility conformed to royal will and were at times active on the king’s side. In 1532 the Bill in restraint of Annates had a difficult passage in the Lords, and forced the king to delay implementation of the bill for a year and allowing a small payment to the pope. There was also some opposition to the bill of Appeals in 1533 because of the fear of economic retaliation by the emperor against English wol trade. Hence the opposition appears to have been driven by practical rather than principled considerations. Without doubt the Warwickshire MP, Sir George Throckmoton, who consulted with Thomas More, John Fisher and with Richard Reynolds about his future course of action, was clearly considering opposition on the basis of principle. There was also some ‘sticking’ over the Act of Treason and its wording.

Conclusion -

There is little or no evidence that these individuals were working together to form a ‘conspiracy’ although this was claimed against them. Bishop Fisher certainly tried to influence the clergy in preserving clerical immunity and legislative independence but aside from this his writings - all in Latin - and his activities were directed at Henry and at Warham and others to desist in their efforts to persuade Fisher to agree to the annulment. Whilst Fisher did know Elizabeth Barton and welcomed her revelations, there is no evidence that he tried to use these to mount a campaign against the King. Barton, Fisher and the Observants might be considered outright opponents, but More and the Carthusians are more justly considered ‘passive’. Their executions demonstrated that the regime was not going to tolerate even this level of opposition, and that only active support for the regime could guarantee safety.

8

The Fall of Anne BoleynRather than secure Anne Boleyn and her supporters, Catherine’s death perhaps helped weaken her position, because whilst Catherine was alive Henry was bound to support his second wife and her associates, who had, after all, delivered the annulment that he had so desperately wanted. Now that Catherine was dead, this was no longer the case. Moreover, Henry had reasons for believing that his marriage with Anne - like his first marriage - was cursed. Having failed to deliver a male heir with her first pregnancy, Anne lost her second child (male) in the same month as Catherine’s death. Henry’s disenchantment with Anne gave religious conservatives hope that some of the measures taken to secure the divorce could not be reversed. It was perhaps this that prompted Thomas Cromwell to take drastic measures to distance himself and the cause of reform from Anne Boleyn in the most radical way imaginable - by having her accused, tried and executed for treason. Convicted in a rigged trial before Cromwell and Norfolk, of conspiring against the king with members of the privy council and her lovers, who included the Groom of the Stool, Harry Norris, a musician, William Smeaton and her brother George Boleyn, Anne Boleyn was beheaded on 19th May 1536. Meanwhile, the movement for reform continued with the dissolution of the smaller monasteries which began in the summer of 1536 and the Act of Ten Articles, a theological statement of orthodoxy from Convocation.

Why the lack of opposition?

• People lacked hindsight in 1535 – many believed that the work of the Reformation Parliament would be reversed; few people thought that the legislation was irreversible.

• The initial intention had been to grant an annulment of the marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Once this had been achieved, many thought that the reconciliation was still possible.

• There was no change to the nature of everyday worship in 1535. For much of the country, the Pope was a distant figurehead. Only in 1536 did rumours abound in the north that parish churches were to be plundered alongside smaller monasteries.

• The pope was still under the effective control of Charles V – once that situation changed, then it was believed that an agreement between England and Rome could be negotiated.

• Effective opposition was stymied by the Acts themselves: for example, the Act in Restraint of Appeals (February 1533) removed any legal means whereby anyone could appeal to Rome and through which Rome could respond.

• The bishops had been appointed by the King, and despite their loyalty to the pope were also loyal to the king (e.g. Edward Foxe and John Stokesley had been rewarded for their work on the Collectanea satis copiosa with the bishoprics of Hereford and London).

9

• Charge of Praemunire against Wolsey, against 15 clergymen and its extension to the rest of the clergy by the end of 1530 would have restricted their willingness to support the pope.

• Henry’s moves against the clergy had been gradual – first in 1531, requiring a fine and the acceptance of his position as head of the Church; in 1532 the Submission of the Clergy was obtained under pressure from the Commons. Henry ’s position as supreme law maker in England was confirmed with this. With the death of Warham and his replacement by a compliant Thomas Cranmer the possibility of collective resistance on the part of the clergy was mostly removed. The Act in Restraint of Appeals (February 1533) did not explicitly reject the pope’s supremacy, even if it laid the theoretical basis for that rejection and replacement by Royal Supremacy.

• The lack of opposition may be explained by fear of what would happen to opponents of royal policy. All adult males had to swear an oath to the terms of the Act of Succession (administered in London on 21st April 1534, same day as Elizabeth Barton’s execution). Under the Act of Supremacy (November 1534), all clergy had to make a declaration that the Pope had no greater God-given authority in England than any other foreign bishop. Those oaths were reinforced using the printing press and the pulpit to convince the nation of the legality of Henry’s Reformation. Sermons were preached in support of the Supremacy and the Boleyn marriage.

• The Treason Act of December 1534 added a measure of terror, by making it treasonable to speak out maliciously against Henry or his Queen thus extending the definition of treason to include words as well as deeds.

• Government control of the pulpits allowed hitherto marginal radicals such as Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester from 1535) and Nicholas Shaxton (Bishop of Salisbury) to attack Catholic practice and teaching (both later resigned after the act of Six Articles in 1539 because they considered it too catholic). Royal letters were sent out to bishops, nobles and Justices of the Peace instructing them to imprison any clergy who showed signs of dissent against royal policies. Later, Cromwell’s Injunctions attempted to place a bible in English in every parish church. Assize judges and JPs kept watch in the localities and there were few instances of popular opposition in the south.

10