1603 is a defining year in both English and Scottish history. It is the year that for the first time in the history of the British Isles, the nations of England and Scotland became united under one monarch: with the accession of James VI of Scotland to the throne of England after Queen Elizabeth I’s death with no Tudor heir, in the same year. Until this year, the separate kingdoms had completely separate governments. This meant that they experienced a phenomenon sweeping Europe throughout the sixteenth century; the Protestant Reformation, in different ways. When exploring the historiography of the reformations in England and Scotland, it becomes clear the question of whether it was enforced or embraced is a complicated one. Particularly in
…show more content…
Others such as A.G Dickens have focused on longer term causes, and the genuine Protestant convictions of the English people . This view however has been criticised by revisionist historians such as Christopher Haigh who attacked ‘Whig-Protestant’ interpretations of English history and felt Dickens over-emphasised long-term factors and the Protestant influence, arguing the Protestant reformation was not necessarily wanted by the English people. As Rosemary O’Day summarises, there is a clear question in English Reformation history as to whether Henry VIII had the consent of his people, or simply enforced his will on the nation. This essay will explore that question in comparison to the Scottish Reformation. It will argue that the Reformation was largely embraced in Scotland, and by comparing the two reformations, it can be said that in England it was the case that it was enforced, at least initially. The final point of the essay will explore how the Reformation continued after its initial enforcement during Henry VIII’s reign, in later Tudor England and ask if by 1603, it was beginning to be embraced in England …show more content…
Converse to the English Act in Restraint of Appeals, the Scottish Reformation Parliament did not use the language of empire and the sovereignty of the monarch to renounce Rome. The lack of such language shows that this was not a ‘top-down’ reformation, at least not ‘top-down’ in the sense that it was initiated by the monarchy and enforced on the public as this essay has argued was the case in England. It does however refer to the ‘three estates then being present’. This implies the reformation in Scotland to be a movement crossing political classes, inspiring individuals of various backgrounds to adopt the new Protestant belief system. Additionally the document is dated 1560. In 1559, Protestants in Scotland had been a minority in Scotland, engaged in a civil war with Mary, Queen of Scots’ Scottish regent, Mary of Guise – won, and established a new Protestant church and state. Therefore the break from Rome occurred only after the nation had embraced Protestantism enough to topple the Roman Catholic authority. This is in direct contrast to Henry VIII’s break from Rome in 1534, he was not overthrown by people who had embraced the new religion and sought change. Instead, when the Pope declared his marriage to Catherine of Aragon lawful in Rome, he was forced to action. This chronological contrast shows the difference between England’s enforcement and Scotland’s embracement.
Others such as A.G Dickens have focused on longer term causes, and the genuine Protestant convictions of the English people . This view however has been criticised by revisionist historians such as Christopher Haigh who attacked ‘Whig-Protestant’ interpretations of English history and felt Dickens over-emphasised long-term factors and the Protestant influence, arguing the Protestant reformation was not necessarily wanted by the English people. As Rosemary O’Day summarises, there is a clear question in English Reformation history as to whether Henry VIII had the consent of his people, or simply enforced his will on the nation. This essay will explore that question in comparison to the Scottish Reformation. It will argue that the Reformation was largely embraced in Scotland, and by comparing the two reformations, it can be said that in England it was the case that it was enforced, at least initially. The final point of the essay will explore how the Reformation continued after its initial enforcement during Henry VIII’s reign, in later Tudor England and ask if by 1603, it was beginning to be embraced in England …show more content…
Converse to the English Act in Restraint of Appeals, the Scottish Reformation Parliament did not use the language of empire and the sovereignty of the monarch to renounce Rome. The lack of such language shows that this was not a ‘top-down’ reformation, at least not ‘top-down’ in the sense that it was initiated by the monarchy and enforced on the public as this essay has argued was the case in England. It does however refer to the ‘three estates then being present’. This implies the reformation in Scotland to be a movement crossing political classes, inspiring individuals of various backgrounds to adopt the new Protestant belief system. Additionally the document is dated 1560. In 1559, Protestants in Scotland had been a minority in Scotland, engaged in a civil war with Mary, Queen of Scots’ Scottish regent, Mary of Guise – won, and established a new Protestant church and state. Therefore the break from Rome occurred only after the nation had embraced Protestantism enough to topple the Roman Catholic authority. This is in direct contrast to Henry VIII’s break from Rome in 1534, he was not overthrown by people who had embraced the new religion and sought change. Instead, when the Pope declared his marriage to Catherine of Aragon lawful in Rome, he was forced to action. This chronological contrast shows the difference between England’s enforcement and Scotland’s embracement.