Next Theme?

I have nearly finished reading the first of the Warren books, Elizabeth I: Religion and Foreign Affairs. When I do finish it I will move onto his next book and I anticipate being able to come up with my next theme for Elizabeth's reign. I suspect it may be Power, Control and Rebellion, or something similar.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foreign Policy - Part 3

How to teach this, that is the question now.

Again, as with the previous sequence of posts, it is important to position Elizabethan Foreign Policy in the wider historical context - what went before and led to the situation Elizabeth faced at the start of her reign. It is also important to position the foreign policy in the wider European context of the time - what events forced decisions upon her during her reign. In this respect I have barely scraped the surface, for example why was Spain so disinterested in England during the late 1560's and the 1570's when the relationship was deteriorating rapidly and messily? Because although Phillip was disturbed by the religious developments in England and by the growing threat of English interference in the Netherlands, he was more concerned with the threat from Turkey.

So the key is to place the foreign policy in its broader context and once again explore the idea that decisions are never made in isolation and that each and every decision brings its own set of pros and cons, consequences both real and imagined.

Presenting the information for this topic could be complex. It might make sense to present it in the form of a diagram showing the relationships between England, France and Spain, and against each country listing the primary concerns which might drive their foreign policy. This might allow a graphical representation of where these concerns and factors overlap and therefore create tension or lead to mutual interest and friendship. So for example, under Spain would be the concern to retain control over the Netherlands due to trade and prestige concerns. Under France would be the need to thwart the Hapsburg encirclement and the Netherlands being a convenient place to do it. Under England would be the need to maintain the Netherlands under friendly rule to safeguard trade and prevent enemies gaining access to suitable ports of embarkation to invade.

This idea would need some development if I were to take it to the point of a lesson plan, but I think this is a good start point.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foreign Policy - Part 2

In the previous post we saw that at the start of Elizabeth's reign her foreign policy followed traditional lines and we saw how this traditional policy had developed over time.

Elizabeth continued to demonstrate this traditional policy for some time. In 1559 the Archduke Charles (younger son of the Austrian Hapsburgs) was a suitor for marriage with Elizabeth. This was to keep Phillip II of Spain both happy and a potential ally against French aggression particularly in Scotland where 10,000 French troops were stationed threateningly close to England. It was also important to keep Phillip II happy as rule of the Netherlands because of the importance to England of the cloth trade.

From the mid to late 1560's, relations with Spain began to deteriorate. There are several reasons for this, religion being a key one. Phillip II became increasingly annoyed and impatient with England and Elizabeth over their adherence to the Protestant faith. In 1558 Phillip had high hopes that Elizabeth would return to Roman Catholicism. As time went on he realised this was not going to happen. This deterioration meant that the Netherlands trade was threatened, though in reality the Netherlands enjoyed a good deal of freedom from Hapsburg interference. Then in 1566 the Dutch Revolt began. This was to last for most of the rest of the century and involve a near constant war with wild swings of fortune. This changed the situation dramatically; now the Spanish sought to re stamp their authority on the Netherlands and this really did threaten English interests and trade.

To counter this Elizabeth needed to foster a friendship elsewhere in Europe, the obvious place was France. From the late 1560's this is precisely what she did. In 1569 she entered marriage negotiations with the French Duke of Anjou (second in line to the throne) and in 1572 his brother the Duke of Alencon (later to become the Duke of Anjou) became the subject of marriage negotiations. Though these marriage negotiations came to nought they did result in a treaty of friendship, the Treaty of Blois. By this treaty, France abandoned the claims of Mary Stuart to the English throne and a defensive league, designed to prevent Spanish aggression against either of them, was established.

This new friendship was to survive several rocky encounters, including the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 (massacre of over 3000 Protestants in Paris). The French and the English provided implicit and eventually explicit support for the Dutch in their revolt against Spain, and ultimately both went to war against Spain.

Surely this represents a clear change in English foreign policy? But where is the common denominator in all of this? The Netherlands. The main aim of English foreign policy here and for several hundred years previously, was to ensure the Netherlands remained in friendly hands. While Spain was a friend this was simple, France remained, as previously, the main threat. But when the friendship with Spain broke down and she became increasingly the enemy, the matter became more complex. France became the natural friend to counter balance Spain and to help maintain a friendly Netherlands. (Incidentally, this made sense to the French too - it provided a good counter to the Hapsburg encirclement).

When we look at it this way, Elizabethan foreign policy represented continuity.

Where Elizabethan foreign policy did differ was in Elizabeth's methods. Almost without exception, previous monarchs had treated foreign policy as their own private preserve, as a game from which they could extract fame, prestige, wealth, and personal prowess and the usual means to achieve this was war. Elizabeth used marriage negotiations as in preference to war. War was expensive and she rarely had the luxury of money to spent on such things. Yes she did take England into war, the reign began with war against France and hostilities continued until 1564. She took England into war against Spain in the Netherlands (and at sea). However, two points are noteworthy here:

1. she hesitated to send troops and real help to the Dutch for a long time
2. she attempted negotiations with the Duke of Parma (the Spanish commander in the Netherlands) to avert hostilities even while Leicester was going to the Netherlands with troops in 1585.

In one other important respect Elizabethan foreign policy differed from the past. It did not operate to serve the monarch's personal or dynastic policy. We can see this in several ways:

1. Elizabeth twice allowed herself to be dissuaded from a marriage she really wanted (Dudley in 1560 and Alencon in 1580) because national interests mitigated against it.
2. She went to war reluctantly.
3. She supported rebels against their appointed rulers, something she was always uncomfortable with personally because of the risks to rulers inherent with popular uprisings.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foriegn Policy - Part 1

The next theme I want to discuss is Elizabethan Foreign Policy and the degree of continuity and of change the policy represents from previous reigns. I will probably cover Power, Rebellion and Control in a later entry.

In 1558, when Elizabeth ascended the throne, her foreign policy reflected the traditional view that France was England's most dangerous enemy. Spain remained a friend, again a fairly traditional view. In 1603, when Elizabeth died, this had seemingly been reversed. Spain was the enemy, and had been for some time whilst France was now a friend. At face value this represents a dramatic change in the traditional foreign policy of her predecessors. But is this really the case.

To investigate this properly we need to go back and touch upon foreign policy of previous reigns. Ever since the Norman conquest of England in 1066, France and England had maintained a closely intertwined and troubled relationship. The Normans, Kings in the own right in England, were also landowners owing fealty to the King of France for their Duchy of Normandy. This led to a delicate relationship. Medieval and feudal society was based largely upon the relationships between a subject and his lord. The lord could call upon his subject to provide services, usually military, in payment for his land and titles. This was true of Kings to their Dukes/Counts/Barons as well as of Dukes/Counts/Barons to their knights and sires. But Kings did not owe allegiance or service to anyone. So at what level did the King of England owe service and fealty to the King of France? In reality he did not as the King of England, but he did as the Duke of Normandy.

Over time, this delicate relationship became more complex as a result of dynastic marriages, to the extent that the Angevin Kings of England (the first Plantagenets) starting with Henry II, owned/controlled more French land than the Kings of France. Relations between the two kingdoms remained strained as the French monarchy slowly clawed back territory from the English monarchy until the issue of fealty and allegiance boiled over into war, the Hundred Years War. The causes of the war are many and varied and I will not cover them here, this is merely an illustration of the troubled relationship between the two countries.

Troubled relations between England and France continued into Elizabeth's reign; her father Henry VIII, went to war against France on more than one occasion. The war with France that Elizabeth had to bring to a close at the start of her reign originated in the reign of her predecessor, Mary, who went to war against France in support of Spain.

Part of the problem with France was the ever present fear of invasion from France. This was complicated by the French friendship with Scotland and therefore the risk of French invasion by the "back door", or at the very least of Scottish interference whenever England was embroiled in war with France, as indeed did happen in 1513. French ambitions in the Low Countries (The Spanish Netherlands) were also a threat; if the French controlled the Netherlands then they would control the whole of the southern shore of the English Channel and therefore have even greater access to suitable invasion force embarkation ports.

The Netherlands also represented a very important trade for England in cloth and wool and this had been the case for several hundred years. A traditional English policy was to remain friends with the rulers of the Netherlands and to use this friendship to offset French ambitions here. In the past this had been the Dukes of Burgundy and this friendship had been used to severely weaken France. By the mid 16th Century, the Duke of Burgundy was also the King of Spain.

At this point a look at the French viewpoint is interesting. For France, the great threat was not England, but a Hapsburg (the rulers of Spain, Austria and the Holy Roman Emperor) encirclement. This seemed to the French a very real threat, given that the Hapsburgs ruled Spain on France's southern border and the Netherlands and Burgundy on France's north-eastern border as well as Austria further to the east. So French policy was frequently aimed at thwarting this encirclement, often by interfering in the Netherlands. This might seem perfectly logical to us looking at events through a 450 year lens, but to the rulers of the time, when information about neighbouring countries and their intentions was sparse if not non-existent, such actions could seem alarmingly hostile.

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 4

Hmm, these last few have been long blogs. Lets try to wrap this up quickly.

How would I teach this? Well first I think it is important to relate the religious issue back to events during the previous 3 reigns. Additionally, a look further back to explore the relationship between church and crown would give important background and help to frame the understanding of the importance of the issues at stake.

Secondly I would reference the international aspect of the issue. Again, this requires some backtracking over the previous reigns; no monarch ever rules in isolation, decisions are made in relation to everything else that is going on, and to much that has gone before and led to the current position. Care must be taken to explore the possible consequences of every decision. So looking back as I have done on these few blogs is important to show that the problems Elizabeth faced in 1558/9 did not appear out of the blue and therefore their solutions would necessarily be complex.

Thirdly, and this is perhaps how the topic would develop further, I would explore what shaped the Elizabethan religious settlement itself and this would mean looking at the person of Elizabeth, her education, her religious preferences, her views on social and civil order and the role of the crown vis a vis the church.

So now I need to continue to read Warren and come up with the next theme. Perhaps I will explore the religious settlement itself and look at how the Bishops and Elizabeth's views differed about it and look at how and why Elizabeth defended the settlement. Or perhaps not...

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 3

First let me explain that the theme of religion and Foreign Policy is one which affects the whole of Elizabeth I's reign and not just the first few years. Therefore it is a theme I may well return to to illustrate episodes and issues from later in her reign.

When Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558 she had to deal with a precarious foreign policy issue and try to end the war with France. She also had to deal with religious expectations. Elizabeth was welcomed by many protestants as a saviour and yet the country was still Catholic in many areas and the clerical and lay hierarchy were strongly Catholic. In addition to this there was much foreign interest in which way she would proceed religionwise. We can also throw into the mix Elizabeth's own religious views. We do not have any firm evidence of them but we do know that she was raised and educated as a protestant. Her tutor was Matthew Parker, a protestant whom she was to appoint as her first Archbishop of Canterbury. Her childhood may well have led her to see Rome as a barrier to her legitimacy (the break with Rome had come about in order to allow her father to marry her mother). Other evidence, such as the 1561 New year's gift incident also suggest that she was a moderate protestant in her beliefs.

So in religious terms Elizabeth is faced with a tough decision at the very start of her reign. Essentially she has three options:

1. Keep Catholicism
2. Return to the Henrician model of church and worship
3. Move to a moderate protestantism

Each option had its pros and cons. So lets look at each in turn (in school I would want to present these in a tabular format but I cannot get the Blog software to allow it)

Keep Catholicism

Pros

• It would keep Spain friendly
• Philip II was a possible suitor for marriage to Elizabeth at this point

Cons

• Elizabeth prefers protestant worship personally
• She has many protestant supporters
• The protestant Martyrs of Mary's reign have lead to a view by some that Submission to Rome means submission to Spain means Martyrdom

Return to the Henrician model of church and worship

Pros

• Most people seem comfortable with a non-Roman Catholicism

Cons

• Times have changed and moving back to Henrician worship would prove difficult
• Henrician church and worship are not easy to define as Henry himself changed them to suit his mood and politics

Move to a moderate Protestantism

Pros

• Short term this would be good politically as she has much protestant support
• Suits her own religious preferences
• Moderate protestantism with a system of church governance through Bishops would allow her to keep control of the church through the Bishops.

Cons

• A move to protestantism might risk a move to more radical protestantism - Calvinism
• This might lead to local unrest ( the reforms of Edward's reign had resulted in much resentment and unrest)
• Calvinism would lead to a loss of control of the church
• Most people were essentially conservative in their religion
• A move to protestantism would make an enemy of France and Spain and perhaps bring on the Catholic Grand Alliance

This was complicated by the fact that a sudden change in religion would require the support of Parliament and therefore the support of the Catholic Marian Bishops in the House of Lords.

Essentially Elizabeth opted for option 3. But she had to play a middle game. She sent mixed signals. To the Protestants she showed she was a protestant, for instance by forbidding the elevation of the host during mass. To Catholics she declared she would restore the form of worship of the latter years of Henry VIII's reign, which was essentially Catholic. She had to balance all of this against the precarious international situation:

• She was still at war with France and Scotland, though trying to negotiate peace
• Mary Stuart was in France claiming to be the rightful Catholic heir to the English throne
• She wanted to regain Calais
• She needed to keep Spain on her side as a balance against France.

That Elizabeth was able to secure the religious settlement in 1559 whilst ending the war with France and keeping Spain on relatively friendly terms is quite remarkable. As the international situation shifted during 1559 she was able to mold her tactics accordingly. When the war with France was formally concluded Elizabeth was able to act against the Catholic Marian Bishops in the Lords with more force. A disputation (debate) was called between Catholics and Protestants at which the Protestant verbal attacks were so violent the Catholics withdrew from parliament. At this point, outside the protection of parliament, Elizabeth had 3 of them arrested for disobedience to her. This reduced the Catholic majority and overawed many of the rest. She added to this a bill to transfer the first fruits and tenths (taxes from the church) from the Pope to the crown. This appealed to the lay lords who were happy to see crown revenues rise if it meant they didn't pay any extra.

Ultimately the parliament of 1559 passed the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity. These established the Elizabethan Church of England largely as a moderately protestant church which could demonstrate it had not travelled very far from Catholicism. The Church retained and episcopalian structure and hierarchy and reflected Elizabeth's moderate protestant preferences. In this way it also appealed to the widest possible range of Elizabeth's subjects and reduced the risk of civil unrest. That Elizabeth saw this as the end of the matter and her protestant bishops did not is a matter for another blog, perhaps.

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 2

So what of the legacy of Foreign Policy. This is not so complex but no less important. The importance of religion in people's lives and in the running of the country meant that it was also important in foreign policy where it could be used as a weapon. The Reformation sweeping Europe through the 16th century only made religious differences even more important to foreign policy as it opened up new opportunities for changing the age old divisions between countries. It is perhaps difficult for us to imagine such a world from the view point of our largely secular western society, but such strong passions still exist particularly between Christian and Muslim worlds and the unscrupulous can still use these passions to foment conflict.

The foreign policy of Henry VIII can be seen as largely traditional. shortly upon ascending the throne he embarked on an aggressive policy directed against the old enemy, France. This was nothing new and stemmed from Hastings in 1066. This policy took Henry to war with France on several occasions, none of them particularly successful. The policy also saw Henry continue a longstanding friendship with Spain helped by his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and by extension the Holy Roman Empire ruled by Charles V (also King of Spain and nephew of Catherine). Henry remained wary of Scotland, his sister Margaret married James IV of Scotland but that did not prevent Scotland and France from causing him trouble.

Religion comes into play with Henry's break from Rome and his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. This severely strained his relationship with Spain and Charles V and raised the alarming prospect of a Catholic Grand Alliance of Spain, France, the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy against England. Perhaps only Franco Spanish rivalry kept Spain and England as wary allies.

The reigns of Edward and Mary saw England move closer to Spain and further towards, and then into, war with France. First, during Edward's reign, attempts to marry Mary Stuart (the Catholic child queen of Scotland and Henry VII's great grand daughter) to Edward only pushed her into the arms of France where she married the French heir to the throne.

Mary Tudor, married Phillip II of Spain upon her accession to the throne. This was a good Catholic marriage and once again weaves religion into things. Whatever, Mary's reasons, she ultimately led England into war against France in support of her husband's realm of Spain. The war proved disastrous. The French sent 10000 soldiers to Scotland to threaten the North of England and Calais was lost, the last remaining English foothold on the continent. But as the peace talks commenced at Cateau Cambresis Mary died and so it was Elizabeth and her advisers who had to negotiate the peace.

So in 1558, when Elizabeth ascended the throne she was faced with two linked dilemmas. How would she conclude a much needed peace with France and maintain important friendships in Europe to secure the country from threat of invasion. Simultaneously, how would she steer the country through religious turmoil and still maintain those friends abroad whilst maintaining civil order at home.

See part 3 for the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559 and how foreign affairs and religious pressures shaped it...

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 1

I have started reading Warren's "Elizabeth I: Religion and Foreign Affairs". The book is very interesting and so now I am blogging based on this reading and the thoughts it has generated. Also, this will be my first attempt at a thematic approach to my learning/writing. The first theme is Religion and Foreign Policy, obvious really considering the book I am reading, but let's see how I get on.

The beginning of Elizabeth's reign was a very delicate time for England in both religious and foreign affairs. Moreover, these two areas were inextricably linked; Elizabeth urgently needed to resolve the question of religious worship in England and at the same time had to extricate the country from a costly and unsuccessful war with France. All this had to be done without risking the security of either the country or her throne.

To understand why Elizabeth was faced with these two urgent priorities and why they are so inextricably linked it is necessary to look back to before the Tudors came to the throne in 1485. Let's start with religion. The relationship between the Church and the Crown was always a very important one throughout the history of medieval England. There are several reasons for this.

• Religion was assumed to be crucial for civil order
• The vast majority of people believed in God, Heaven and Hell and that the Church was the way to learn what God wanted and therefore to secure a place in Heaven
• The clergy had always provided important officials for the crown due to their learning and ability to read and write (this had lately become less important as the growth of lay learning provided the crown with capable lay officials)
• Many clergy were careerist crown officials whose high Church office was a result of crown service
• The Church was hugely wealthy and powerful as a result
• Church prelates (Bishops, Archbishops and Abbots) were peers of the realm who sat in the House of Lords when a parliament was called
• The Church had legal powers covering much of people's behaviour in such areas as wills and marriage
• As the monarch was not an ordained priest he had no real authority over the church, that roles was the Pope's

As a result the Church was in many ways a state within a state (not that the concept of a state really existed then) and the crown resented this implicit challenge to its authority. Crown and Church needed to work together to ensure the harmonious running of the country. When their relationship broke down there were problems for all. A good example of this was the dispute between Henry II and Thomas a Becket.

During 16th Century this relationship was fundamentally changed by Henry VIII when in 1531 to 1533 he broke with Rome and replaced the Pope with himself as head of the English Church. We do not need to look at why Henry brought about these changes other than to say that it was very largely political and driven by his need to produce a male heir and was brought about by his inability to obtain from the Pope an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to enable him to marry Anne Boleyn.

At the time of this, continental Europe was undergoing the protestant Reformation driven by the teachings of Luther et al. But Henry's break with Rome did not turn England into a protestant country. Henry remained for the most part a Catholic if not a Roman Catholic. However, the break with Rome did allow protestant teachings and influence to develop at Henry's court from time to time. The Boleyns (Elizabeth's family) and Seymours (Edward VI's family) were enthusiastic protestants as was Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife. Whilst Mary (Henry's daughter by Catherine of Aragon) was raised as a Catholic, both Elizabeth and Edward were raised as Protestants.

After Henry died, Protestant influence gather pace as Edward's minority meant governors ruled in his name, first Somerset and then Northumberland. By 1553 the English church was officially protestant, though it is doubtful that rural areas were anything but catholic. However, Edward did not last long enough for this reformation to really embed and Mary ascended the throne in 1553 determined to return England to the fold of Rome. It is likely that in many areas this was not entirely unwelcome as the spread of protestantism was limited to the major cities and ports even though it had many powerful supporters. However, political issues meant that a full return to Rome was going to be very difficult if not impossible, certainly in the short term. The dissolution of the monasteries from 1536 had seen the distribution of much church property to a large number of wealthy and powerful lay families and reversing this would be impossible. Mary's reign did see a return to the cult of saints, shrines and pilgrimages, but not to the extent it had been before 1533 and Mary was never able to re-establish the supremacy of the Pope.

Perhaps most significant was the Marian persecution of protestants. Some 200 prominent protestants were burnt as heretics including Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. This gave protestantism in England its first martyrs and helped the movement gain support. In 1558 when Elizabeth succeeded Mary to the throne, protestants saw her as a saviour; the City of London even put on a show for her. Many prominent protestants who had lived in exile during Mary's reign returned. Yet Elizabeth was faced with an almost completely Catholic hierarchy in the country as reflected in the House of Lord in her first parliament.

See part 2 for Foreign Affairs legacy...

In the temporary absence of books on Elizabeth I to read I have started reading "Reflective Teaching and Learning" as this is one of the core text books required for the course. I am finding it a lot more interesting and easy to read than I had thought might be the case.

I have nearly finished the 4th chapter. So far there has been plenty of food for thought and much of what I have read echoes my own thought process about teaching, especially the teaching of History. For example it talks about learning in out-of-school contexts and how valuable it is, something which I am already a firm believer in as you will no doubt glean from my blog posts so far.

I have found the sections on classroom management to be particularly interesting; the book quite rightly points out that this is the primary concern of most beginning teachers and I have to say that I am no different in that respect in spite of 15 years experience of training and facilitation delivery to adults I know that I will still have a lot to learn.

Something that has helped put my mind at ease is how much of subject matter of the book I already know. The section of reflective practice is familiar from Learning and Development in general and Coaching specifically. Classroom layouts, Transactional Analysis, Kolb and learning styles, learning objectives and some of the theory of lesson planning are other sections which which I am more or less familiar. This is encouraging and I hope that I will be able to draw on my long experience when I start teaching in school; I firmly believe that this experience will be a real asset, as long as I can tap into it appropriately.

Field-Based Learning

We had Tesco Clubcard vouchers for Warwick Castle that had been sitting around for weeks and were about to expire, so yesterday we went to Warwick Castle. My wife, my 7 year old son and me. Frankly we had a wonderful day out. Whilst none of the day improved my knowledge of Elizabeth I, it did help me understand even more about the value of such experiences in teaching history.

We started by listening to an archer and watching him demonstrate the use of both long and cross bows. He then told us how you removed arrows from wounds; gruesome but fascinating and my 7 year old was absolutely rapt, a state he would be in for large periods during the day. Many employees of the castle were dressed in medieval costume and walking around talking to visitors. We took part in the Sword in the Stone event, Tom was even chosen to step up and remove the sword for which he was rewarded with a toy sword and a certificate proclaiming him to be a true knight of Warwick Castle. Parenthood is made of such proud moments. We tried our own hand at archery and watched full sized working trebuchet fire a flaming projectile.

The value of learning this way is immense. I learned things I hadn't know, not major points and facts but little things that really bring it to life; the tools being used in the demonstrations and displays of Kingmaker, that Winston Churchill was not very tall, and other things too. Experiences like this really bring history to life, lifting it from the page so that you don't just read and understand what it was like, but you can see, feel, hear and smell what is was like and really start to appreciate it.