Special Edition: Of Kings and Religion

A friend commenting elsewhere on these entries asked me about the relationship between the rulers of European nations and the religion practiced by the people of those nations. After composing an answer, I thought others might like to read it.

I remarked in one of the earlier entries that it was a widely-accepted idea that the people of a country should have the same religion as their ruler. That goes all the way back to the era of the barbarian conversions. However, the concept was starting to break down in the 16th century, running up as it did against the idea of individual conscience in an environment in which there was no longer a single monolithic church in Western Europe.

The monarch tended to surround him/herself with like-minded advisors. Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, herself devoted to Roman Catholicism as a characteristic of her Spanishness and as a consolation against being put aside by Henry VIII. Mary Tudor was raised rigidily RC. Then she went and married one of the most RC rulers in Europe, Philip of Spain. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was raised Protestant after the preferences of her mother's family. So when she came to power, her allies amongst the noble families were Protestants. It was from that pool that she drew her advisors and councillors.

The link between church and state was very strong in the Middle Ages. Kings often appointed bishops, who had a lot of temporal power and responsibility as well as spiritual duties and oversight. Many clergy were high-ranking secular authorities--Henry VIII employed Cardinal Wolsey as his chancellor for a time.

At the same time, the Roman church was deeply involved in the power politics of Europe. England and France were old enemies; when Spain became the top banana in 16th century Europe (overshadowing the old Holy Roman Empire, which Spain more or less co-opted at that point), England under Elizabeth became her chief rival. Philip II of Spain was vehemently Roman Catholic. He had in mind to serve God and the pope by bringing England back into the Catholic fold. At the same time, the popes did what they could to monkey in England's internal affairs by stirring up opposition to Elizabeth, even encouraging treason to the sovereign by dressing it up as faithfulness to God.

No one, as best I can tell, paid a great deal of attention to what we would call poll results--I doubt if the concept even existed then. Rulers governed based on enlightened self-interest, which normally meant what was best for the country as a whole (not always, as in the case of Charles I). What the rank-and-file populace thought about great matters of state was irrelevant. It was important to have their support, but that could be done by enhancing the economy, winning military victories, and tweaking the noses of old rivals. As time went on and the people received religious training in their churches (and many churches were blessed by excellent preachers and teachers in this era) they became more setted in their Protestantism and less inclined to accept Romanizing tendencies. Witness the reaction of good old Jenny Geddes to Laud's attempt to force the Anglican lectionary on the Scottish churches: She threw a stool at the poor man who tried to "read mass in my lug [ear]."