4.the break and royal supremacy

The Break with Rome and Royal Supremacy

Key Questions (come back to these after your reading)

l What is the relationship between legislation securing supremacy and that creating religious reform? i.e did Henry intend from the outset to reform the Church, or was reform a necessary consequence of securing supremacy over the church? This is a difficult question. It is probably best to approach this by deciding whether you think Henry would have acted in the same way towards the Church had he not been focused on securing his divorce.

l What is the role of Cromwell in securing the supremacy and framing the religious reform which defined the early Tudor reformation period? Did he, as Elton suggests, have a blueprint for the way he wanted the state and church to interact, and thus create a revolution in the relationship between the two authorities?

l At what point did the break with Rome occur?

l How radical was the break with Rome?

l What are the historiographical interpretations of this period?

By 1529 Henry was becoming desperate and disillusioned with attempts to secure his annulment. With Wolsey a defeated (thought not yet destroyed) force, three major factions came to dominate politics at the Henrician Court; the nobles of the Privy Chamber who had been united in bringing down Wolsey, but had little to offer in the way of constructive advice regarding the divorce; the Conservative faction around Katherine who were clearly exerting all influence to prevent the annulment, and the Boleyn faction, who were growing in influence but whose major players, Cromwell and Cranmer, were not to hold significant political influence until 1532. Newcombe sees this factional domination as creating a 'paralysis of policy'.

It was into this air of uncertainty and confusion that Henry called a Parliament in 1529.

of 16

The reasons for calling of Parliament are unclear. Historians have variously argued that Henry was intending to use Parliament to destroy Wolsey (via Lord Darcy's proposed anti-clerical legislation), that he was planning to bring pressure to bear on the clergy and therefore, indirectly, on the Pope to grant his divorce, or that he was intending to use Parliament to rule on his supremacy and thus finalise his divorce without the Pope.

Of course, it may simply be that the calling of Parliament was the only constructive move Henry could think of to break the stalemate.

As you suggested to me several lessons ago, as legate a latere, Wolsey could have made the decision had Katherine agreed. Because she refused to cooperate, the case had to be referred to Rome. The Pope himself wouldn’t and couldn’t grant the divorce (for various reasons you have explored). The only way of overriding the Pope’s decision was for Henry to make himself head of the church. This was unprecedented but he might just get away with it because Parliament was anti-clerical and might support anti-clerical legislation. There was also a fairly strong tradition of erastianism which Henry could draw on. There would be opposition from the Bishops in the House of Lords, but Henry could always invoke the 12th century law of Praemunire to threaten them. Henry needed Parliament to pass the legislation, rather than just passing a royal decree that he was head of the church, for two reasons: one, it gave the decision legitimacy and legality; two, by passing the legislation, all the MPs (who were the nobility and gentry of the country) had basically agreed to Henry’s break with Rome – which meant they couldn’t really rise in rebellion against him.

Wolsey was long viewed by his opponents as the arch

abuser of clerical privilege. He had illegitimate children, made appointments based in

the interest of nepotism or finance (simony). He held

multiple offices, and therefore was also guilty of absenteeism. Quite a lot of

ammunition for an enemy to work with!

The whole period 1529 – 1536 is often referred to as the period of the The Reformation Parliament. In fact, this Parliament sat for less than 500 days over the 6 years of its term- although this is not to undermine the significance of the legislation passed!

This is a complex period, where the issues of the King's divorce, royal supremacy and religious reform are entangled inextricably.

of 16

Nevertheless, in the policy vacuum of the period between the fall of Wolsey and the rise of Cromwell, it is not surprising that the first session of Parliament lasted only from autumn 1529 to Christmas of that year.

The Mercer's Company of London presented a list of grievances to do with trade, but included one article which was anti-clerical in nature. Anti-clerical members of the House of Commons seized on this opportunity to assemble a commission to draw up legislation to deal with these abuses of clerical privilege. Thus the legislation of this early period was framed by anti-clerical nobles, notably Lord Darcy, and covered three main areas of clerical ‘abuse’.

This could be considered stage 1 of the Reformation: initial

reforms

Erastianism and anticlericalism

On the eve of the Reformation in 1529, the Imperial ambassador

to England noted that"nearly all the people here hate

the priests".

An Italian diplomat wrote of the English

"raging against the clergy, or would be if the King's Majesty

were not curbing their fury" (fuel to the ‘bottom-up’ argument!)

There had always been ten-sion between the secular and

the ecclesiastical powers in England. By the late 15th

century, the main disputes revolved around rights of sanctuary and benefit of

clergy.Yet as the modern historians,

J.J.Scarisbrick and Eamon Duffy have shown, many

people willingly supported their local priests, and had to

be pressurized by central government into "reform".

Mortuary fees

There was no standard fee and the clergy were free to charge what they deemed appropriate. Despite the fact that often fees were waived all together by the church, the Commons took this opportunity to insist on regulation of these charges. There was little objection in the Lords.

of 16

Probate fees

Probate is the legal process for administering a deceased person's account in the absence of a will. The Commons alleged that the Church courts charged excessive fees and prolonged the process to increase the fees further. The Lords were unhappy, accusing the authors of lack of faith and hinting at heresy. The Lords Spiritual (i.e bishops) refused to moderate their position, leading to a long and bitter battle with the Lords Temporal (i.e nobles) which eventually resulted in sympathies of the Lords Temporal swinging towards the Commons.

To facilitate the passage of these bills Henry had to issue a non-too subtly veiled threat. Probate and mortuary fees were not the only issues facing Parliament. Also before Parliament was a bill which relieved the King of a £350,000(approx!) debt. In return for the passage of this bill the King offered a general pardon. There was nothing exceptional in this, except that the pardon excluded clerical crimes of praemunire. The clergy took the hint, and cooperated over probate and mortuary fees!

The third anti-clerical bill before Parliament this session was designed to limit pluralism and non-residence, and to limit clerical conduct of lay businesses (usually farming).

The Bishops resented lay interference in the governance of the Church and dug in their heels. Remember that all canon (church) law was supposed to be made in Convocation, not Parliament. Clerical resistance did result in some moderation of the bill.

Such moderation could be seen as evidence for suggesting this period was indeed a period of stalemate (Pendrill's argument); Henry, a religious conservative by nature, was prepared to acquiesce in the face of clerical opposition to reform.

However, it is worth noting that despite modifications to this bill, one significant clause remained: applications for papal dispensations for non-residence were prohibited. Convocation's failure to enact any internal reforms had presented the opportunity for Parliamentary legislation to set a precedent: the reformation of the Church was a matter for Parliament. Clerical opposition would have limited impact. Where would the road end?

There is argument to suggest that the initial anti-clerical

measures of the Reformation Parliament were the nobles’

attempt to curb Wolsey's chances of reinstating himself.

Newcombe “There was sufficient animosity in all

quarters to suggest that much of the action taken against the

Church in the first session of the Reformation Parliament, far from

being designed to challenge papal jurisdiction in England, was aimed at preventing Wolsey from

making any kind of political comeback”.

of 16

However, had Henry's intention at early stage seriously lain with the reform of the church, or with a total break with Rome, it would seem odd that he halted here, after the precedent for Parliamentary interference in the church had been set, but before anything more significant (or useful to Henry!) than reform of obvious abuses had been dealt with. Does this suggest that Henry was simply trying to frighten the clergy with the power of Parliament, and thereby indirectly intimidate the Pope into granting the divorce? Was he fully intending to push Parliament towards the Supremacy but simply taking it slowly to minimize opposition?

Either way, Parliament was prorogued, officially until Easter 1530 but, in fact, it did not meet again until January 1531.

Prorogued – suspended

So what happened during 1530?

Henry was presented with the Collectanea

This was essentially the work of Foxe and Cranmer, and established the fact of the King’s supremacy, as supported by various historic texts: the bible, traditional Catholic texts and English histories. They argued that the English church had always been a separate province of Christendom, subject only to royal jurisdiction. Guy argues that the examples cited in the Collectanea were suficient to convince Henry that “recent papal jurisdiction in England was 'but only by negligence or usurpation as we take it and esteem'” (133)

If Henry’s authority over the church was total (save for the forgiveness of sins, which was a matter for ordained clergy only), he could summon church councils at will, to pronounce on any matter he chose! Convenient.

Pendrill argues that, rather than acting on the claims of supremacy immediately, Henry dithered. This suggests that at this point he was not really contemplating a total break with Rome, merely trying to pressurise Clement into granting the annulment.

As Newcombe argues “The opinions of the European Universities and the Collectanea were seen as tools with which the Pope might be persuaded to grant the divorce, not as the theoretical foundation for schism”.

of 16

And if pressure were necessary, pressure was what Henry would apply.

15 clerics (mainly Katherine's supporters) were charged with Praemunire – the crime of recognising an outside authority over that of the King – for their historic support of Wolsey. This was rapidly broadened to an accusation against all clergy. Praemunire was treason. In reality it was long recognised that clerics necessarily had to obey the Pope in spiritual matters and that they could serve two masters. But desperate times require desperate measures!

Again, there is argument to suggest that Henry was encouraged in this endeavour by councillors still trying to destroy Wolsey.

If this was the original objective it was neutralised by the fact that in 1530 Wolsey died on his way to London to face a charge of treason. Whether Henry would really have executed his former minister and faithful servant, or whether the trial was a move to put further pressure on the Pope we shall never know.

In 1530 Henry also put his case before European scholars and universities. This followed a meeting with Thomas Cranmer in 1529 during which Cranmer had argued the marriage should be assessed by the Doctors of Divinity in the Universities for it was these men that studied the Bible and were therefore best qualified to discuss its meaning. The conclusion of these negotiations was that if the marriage were found to be invalid then all that would be necessary would be for the Archbishop of Canterbury to pronounce the King a free man, in confirmation of the fact that Pope Julius had exceeded his powers by over-ruling the word of God.

It is unsurprising that Convocation was becoming increasingly nervous of Henry’s intentions by the time that Parliament reconvened in January 1531.

Stage 2: more formal attacks on the church

Henry offered the clergy a general pardon in return for £118,000 subsidy to 'protect the realm'. When it was pointed out that the crime of praemunire meant that all clerical property could be forfeit to the crown, the clergy agreed to the fine!

The clergy did manage to negotiate the payment of this fine over 5 years, rather than immediately as Henry originally demanded (further grist to Pendrill’s mill!)

of 16

However, the significant element of the legislation was not so much the fine, as the prologue, which stated that the clergy must submit to Henry as the “sole protector and Supreme Head of the English Church and clergy”.

Eventually, the clergy led by Bishop Fisher, forced through a compromise by inserting the words “in so far as the law of Christ allows”. This negated Henry's claims to supremacy, but the message was clear.

It could be argued that the lesson that Henry learned from the clergy's submission to this

act was that there would be little resistance if further demands

were made. However, that Henry agreed to clerical amendments to the bill does suggest he was

reticent at this point to contemplate radical measures.

Parliament was again prorogued on 31 March 1531, after legislation was passed extending protection (from charges of Praemunire) to clergymen denying papal supremacy, to reconvene in January 1532.

By this point Henry and Anne were living openly together at Greenwich. The Pope had ordered Henry to separate from Anne and instructed that he was not free to re-marry. Clement had also delayed a final pronouncement for a further year.

1532 was arguably a turning point. Cromwell, now appointed to the Privy Council, developed as a parliamentary manager. He had played a role in drafting the criticism of the Church in 1529 and was to re-visit these ideas and strategies in the years to come.

Stage 3: the Break!

1532 the Supplication against the Ordinaries(bishops) was organised by Cromwell and presented to the King. It was a strong attack on many aspects of the Church, Canon Law and the independence of Convocation. Henry accepted these criticisms, and the clergy were ordered to formally apologise for such abuses.

This apology was framed in the [1532] Submission of the Clergy, a document (not yet statute!) which had to be signed by all Bishops. John Guy argues that this reflects Cromwell's brilliance as a manipulator of Parliament.

“Cromwell resurrected the Commons' anticlerical grievances of 1529, especially those concerning heresy trials. He brilliantly exploited the emotions of Mps to engineer, on 15 May 1532, the formal submission of the clergy to Henry VIII. Convocation was not to assemble without the king's permission; no new canons were to be enacted without royal assent; existing ones were to be vetted by a royal commission; and those prejudicial to royal prerogative were to be annulled....Cromwell had brought off a coup”

Thomas More resigned

of 16

Guy also argues that Cromwell wanted the church to be subject to the King-in-Parliament rather than solely to the King, and had tried to word the 1532 Submission to this end. Radical indeed. Henry, assisted by his apologists (including Bishop Gardiner), argued that if royal supremacy existed by divine law, its authority preceded and superceded that of Parliament. Henry was no revolutionary, and did not wish to devolve his power to the 'masses' in this way. It could be argued that Clerical resistance to the notion of Parliamentary, rather than monarchical, supremacy, was a significant reason for the relatively limited opposition that was raised to Henry's reforms.

Also in 1532 the Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates was presented to the commons.

Annates (sometimes called St.Peter's Pence) were payments made to Rome of the first year's income from newly appointed bishops. This Act withholds annates from Rome but gives King the option of allowing them to continue. It was arguably designed as economic blackmail, pressurizing the Pope; the implication being that the act would not become law should the divorce be granted. However, it could also be viewed that Henry shied away from an intention to pass this reform conclusively at this stage, and made it conditional upon further confirmation when met with serious clerical opposition. Testing the water so to speak. The act also stated that the Pope cannot delay consecration of bishops or excommunicate Englishmen in retaliation

Early 1533 Anne Boleyn told Henry that she was pregnant and she and Henry were married in a secret ceremony. The resolution of 'the King's Great Matter' became critical, as Henry convinced himself that the unborn child was the male heir he so desperately wanted. Things had to move quickly.

of 16

1533 Act in Restraint of Appeals recognized England’s sovereignty (as an Empire) and prevented appeal in legal mattes to outside jurisdiction. The King was reaffirming his supreme authority in all legal matters in England, including church matters.

Surprisingly, opposition to this bill came from the Commons not the Lords. Many bishops had supported Henry to a degree thus far, astutely reasoning that Henry's continuing favour would mediate against the growing authority of Parliament over the Church. Many Lords supported the crown out of a concern for social stability, thus the House of Lords was fairly acquiescent.

Opposition in the Commons centred mainly on Katherine's circle; Sir George Throckmorton, Sir William Essex and Sir John Gifford. Opposition too from More's family circle; William Roper and William Daunce.

In the same year, the Act in restraint of Annates formally brought to pass the conditional 1532 Act.

It could be argued that even at this point Henry was hoping to pressurise the Pope into granting his annulment, validating his marriage to Anne after the fact. Indeed, he told Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, the same. Clearly, a break with Rome was still to be avoided if possible.

It didn't negate historic appeals, however, thus

Katherine's appeal to Rome, lodged in 1529,

remained valid- but ignored!

In May 1533 Thomas Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Katherine null and void as it was contrary to divine law. Later that same month he declared Henry's marriage to Anne legal as Henry had been a bachelor at the time.

In September 1533 Elizabeth was born.

Mary was told she would no longer be referred to as Princess, her household was disbanded.

December 1533 – an order was passed ordering the Pope to be referred to as the Bishop of Rome. He had no more authority than any other Bishop within England.

Little by little, the break was made.

Parliament cemented the break with Rome in 1534.

The Act of Succession 1534

Mary was excluded from the succession, in favour of the offspring of Anne and Henry. Cromwell, in his first action as Henry’s vicegerent (deputy) was to make all nobles swear an oath confirming to the terms of the succession. Such an oath clearly gave ascent to the whole issue of annulment and re-marriage. More and Fisher refused to take the oath.

of 16

The Act of Supremacy made official Henry's supremacy over the Church in England. The purpose of putting the supremacy into law was to make it enforceable by a Treason Act in the same year. This new Treason act widened the definition of treason to include any denial of the King's supremacy.

Early indications of the uses that would be made of the Royal Supremacy came also in 1534:

The Act for the Submission of the Clergy put into law the surrender of 1532

The Dispensations Act stopped all remaining payments to Rome, and ensured that all licenses and dispensations from canon law were to be granted by English authority (Archbishop of Canterbury) rather than by Rome. The Act of First Fruits and Tenths forbade the payment of old papal taxes to the Crown.

In 1536 the jurisdictional revolution was completed by the Act Extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. This was necessary because the acts of 1533-4 had omitted to proscribe the pope’s rights as a pastor or teacher who might interpret scripture or offer moral guidance.

Reading:

Pendrill, pp.75-87

Randell Henry VIII and the Reformation in England, chapter 3 up to page 50

Murphy, Keen, Tillbrook and Walsh-Atkins, England 1485-1603 pp.140-146 (attached)

of 16

STEPS TO THE DIVORCE AND BREAK WITH ROME

Task: Use the notes provided to complete a flow chart showing the date, the event, and any significant comments

1529 Parliament called

1529Initial attacks on the church

Mortuary fees Attack on the clergy

Probate fees

Limits on pluralism and non-residence

Parliament prorogued

1530 Henry receives Collectanea Claims historical precedents for monarchical supremacy over the church

Henry calls on scholars and Universities to debate his marriage

Henry is showing the Pope that he is seeking alternative judgement.

Clergy charged with Praemunire Pressure on the clergy

Wolsey dies on way to trial for treason

of 16

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

For what reasons may Henry have called Parliament in 1529?

How has Newcombe described the period between the fall of Wolsey in

1529 and the rise of Cromwell in 1532?

For how long did the so-called ‘reformation parliament’ sit?

What are the 3 stages of the legal reformation?

In 1529, was Henry planning to use Parliament to break with Rome?

There was no parliament between the end of 1529 and January 1531. What

events occurred in this period?Colelctanea

Charge of praemunireEuropean scholars

How do Guy and Newcombe differ in their interpretation of the importance

of the Collectanea?

Is there any evidence that there was a reformist faction at work, pushing Henry down the road to schism?

of 16

In January 1531 Henry issued a pardon to the clergy in return for a fine – what is the significance of this legislation?

Is it appropriate to see 1532, and the arrival of Cromwell on the political scene, as a turning point?

Why was it necessary to expose clerical abuses IN PARLIAMENT?

(E.G SUPPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDINARIES?)

SO THEY WOULD APOLOGISE, BY ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR FAULT THEY

ARE ACCEPTING THEY HAVE FAILED TO REFORM FROM WITHIN AND SO GIVING HENRY LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO REFORM

FROM WITHOUT!

Guy argues that Cromwell’s vision of royal supremacy was revolutionary – in

what way?

How significant was Anne’s pregnancy in precipitating the break with Rome? {is this more significant than the emergence of Cromwell as a political player?)

How does the Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates erode the Pope’s authority?

Is Cranmer’s May 1533 declaration of the validity of Anne and Henry’s marriage legal?

What were the advantages of the royal supremacy?

of 16

Discussion questions – copy for students

For what reasons may Henry have called Parliament in 1529?

How has Newcombe described the period between the fall of Wolsey in 1529 and the rise of Cromwell in 1532?

For how long did the so-called ‘reformation parliament’ sit?

What are the 3 stages of the legal reformation?

In 1529, was Henry planning to use Parliament to break with Rome?There was no parliament between the end of 1529 and January 1531. What events occurred in this period?

How do Guy and Newcombe differ in their interpretation of the importance of the Collectanea?

Is there any evidence that there was a reformist faction at work, pushing Henry down the road to schism?

In January 1531 Henry issued a pardon to the clergy in return for a fine – what is the significance of this legislation?

Why was it necessary to expose clerical abuses IN PARLIAMENT? (E.G SUPPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDINARIES?)

Guy argues that Cromwell’s vision of royal supremacy was revolutionary – in what way?

How significant was Anne’s pregnancy in finalising the break with Rome? {is this more significant than the emergence of Cromwell as a political player?)

Is it appropriate to see 1532, and the arrival of Cromwell on the political scene, as a turning point?

How does the Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates erode the Pope’s authority?

Is Cranmer’s May 1533 declaration of the validity of Anne and Henry’s marriage legal?

What were the practical advantages of the royal supremacy?

of 16

Homework

Source 1

“Several old and true histories declare that this realm of England is an independent Empire governed by one supreme head and king. It has the dignity of an independent imperial crown. In spite of good laws made in the past by the King's ancestors to preserve the authority of this imperial crown, several dangers and inconveniences have arisen as a result of legal appeals to the see of Rome over matters of wills, marriages and divorces and tithes and church offerings. This has caused great annoyance, trouble and cost to the King's Highness and many of his subjects. It has caused great delay to the settlement of such cases and most who appeal to Rome, do so in order to delay justice. The great distance, so far out of this realm, means that necessary proofs and true knowledge of the case can not, in Rome, be so well known nor witnesses so well examined as within this realm.”From the Act in Restraint of Appeals, 1533

1. Study Source 1

What does the source suggest were the reasons for the passing of this Act?

2. Use your own knowledge:

How far do you agree with the statement that “Henry VIII in 1529 had decided to use whatever means possible to secure his divorce”?

Source 2

‘Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoyed annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining.’

Fro

of 16

“Several old and true histories declare that this realm of England is an independent Empire governed by one supreme head and king. It has the dignity of an independent imperial crown. In spite of good laws made in the past by the King's ancestors to preserve the authority of this imperial crown, several dangers and inconveniences have arisen as a result of legal appeals to the see of Rome over matters of wills, marriages and divorces and tithes and church offerings. This has caused great annoyance, trouble and cost to the King's Highness and many of his subjects. It has caused great delay to the settlement of such cases and most who appeal to Rome, do so in order to delay justice. The great distance, so far out of this realm, means that necessary proofs and true knowledge of the case can not, in Rome, be so well known nor witnesses so well examined as within this realm.”From the Act in Restraint of Appeals, 1533

1. Study Source 1

What does the source suggest were the reasons for the passing of this Act?[10

PLAN

1. Pick out the reasons indicated in the Act – 4 is a reasonable number of separate points to make in a 10 mark question.

2. Now use these reasons as stimulus for discussion

3. Remember the guide for all source analysis answers: Context, Content, Comment.

The Act in Restraint of Appeals was passed in 1533, after the failure of the Pope to provide an annulment had resulted in 6 years of frustration for Henry.

One of the reasons why the Act was passed was because “this realm of England is an independent Empire” . As Guy has suggested, Henry was an advocate of the notion of Imperial Kingship; that the King of England ruled an Empire comprising realms spiritual and temporal. At the time the act was passed this notion which had been recently given historical precedent in the Collectanea of 1532; the “several old and true histories” to which the Source refers. This Act is placing the notion of Imperial Kingship into statute.

Another reasons suggested by the extract is the “ several dangers and inconveniences” which have arisen as a result of appeals to Rome. The dangers arguably refer to the threat of war with the Catholic powers of Europe, in particular Charles V, over the very public usurpation of Catherine as Queen of England. Had the issue of annulment been resolved quickly and quietly in 1527 it is unlikely that this threat would have arisen or persisted. More particularly, the dangers include the risk of dynastic instability as a result of the lack of a legitimate male heir. This became a critical issue in 1533 as Anne was pregnant. The passing of the Act would remove the 'danger' that this child would be born illegitimate, by removing continuing appeals against the annulment. Etc....

of 16

4.the break and royal supremacy

Documents