The origins of the break with Rome can be found in the 1520s. Often, Anne Boleyn had been viewed as the shrewd ‘other woman’ who caused the country’s break with Rome. Whether Henry had actually fallen in love with Anne or their relationship was based on a passing infatuation, it doesn't seem a strong enough reason for him to abandon his own religious beliefs, turn more than half the country against him and break with Rome. With hindsight, we see that Anne was only one reason. Others include the build up of Henry VIII’s power and authority, wealth, the need for an heir and his own religious beliefs.
Retha M. Warnicke writes that Anne was "the perfect woman courtier... her energy and vitality made her the center of attention"¹ and this had caught Henry VIII’s attention. The violence of Henry VIII’s passion for Anne can be seen from the seventeen handwritten letters he wrote to her during her absences from court. He writes that he does not know whether he will fail ‘or find a place in your heart and affection’; he promises to ‘take you for my only mistress’ and ‘serving only you’². While illuminating Henry’s frantic need to procure Anne, these letters also highlight the fact that Henry did not believe he would have any problems with the annulment. This is because he promised Anne the position of his only mistress, something he could guarantee if he had no original intention to break with Rome due to problems with Papal dispensation. However, the provenance of this source must be taken into account. Due to the fact that they were private letters, it is unlikely that the king would lie for any reason, nor express sentiments that were untrue. Yet, it must be remembered that he was infatuated with Anne and would want her back at court immediately. He was trying to seduce her and might have promised her anything. As far as the Reformation is concerned though, these letters prove that, as far as 1531, Henry had no reason to break with Rome other than Anne. This view is supported by Haigh, who argues that Henry was not interested in reform before he sought divorce from Catherine.
However, Haig also argues that a combination of circumstances, and not Anne’s influence, led Henry to move against the church. One of these was the opportunity to increase his power and authority. This view is supported by Source 1, the title page to the ‘Great Bible’, first published in 1539. Henry is shown seated beneath a rather small version of God, as though implying that by becoming the new ‘Head of The Church of England’, his power has grown and God’s has diminished. In the illustration, he is handing out bibles. At the bottom of the illustration, the Bible is heard and not read by the general population. Many are saying ‘Long Live the King’, shown in Latin. This source is further proof of Henry’s hunger for power. He could not allow the English country to be run by a foreign power and to have a higher authority in not only God, but in the Pope. His new title gave him more authority over the population of his own country, which is illustrated by the people having to hear the bible as the king interprets it, and their increased patriotism, shown by the banners. This source demonstrates that Anne’s significance over the Reformation wasn’t very large; rather it was reasons such as the King’s power and authority that caused it.
Henry continued to be reluctant about pushing through the reforms but by 1532, he became determined to do so. According to reports, it was due to Anne’s pregnancy in winter 1532. This is further proof of Anne’s influence on the Reformation. Although her relatives had been using their influence to push the reform, it was her pregnancy that finally brought it about since it was possible that Anne’s child was male. It seems the king did not want to take a risk and abandon the child – lest it turn out to be male but banned from succession like Henry Fitzroy. He saw the opportunity to gain a male heir and pushed through the final acts. Evidence of this can be seen in Source 2, a painting of the King and Anne hunting together. The expression on the King’s face while looking at Anne is so tender and loving; it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t do anything for this woman. His body language indicates his protection for her. However, this picture may have been painted by someone who was paid to make the royal marriage look like a happy one, in order to appease the public, but it may also be genuine and so proof of Anne’s influence over the King. On the other hand, the Dissolution of the Monasteries implied that wealth was a reason for the Reformation. The program was initially designed to create a landed gentry but the wealth went to Henry instead. These monasteries were sometimes the only support for the impoverished and the dissolution of them alienated most of the population outside of London. Henry’s want for wealth is also shown by the Act to Stop Peter’s Pence in 1534 that abolished the payment of taxation to Rome. This tax now went to the crown of England and monasteries ended up funding the king’s constant wars in France. This shows that the need for wealth was a major reason for the Reformation, and weakens the argument that it was Anne Boleyn’s influence that caused it.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury died, Anne had Thomas Cranmer appointed to the position. The fact that she could so easily put someone into a holy position was further proof that she had great influence over the Reformation. Only then would she have so much power over such a position. Eric Ives and Joanna Denny agree that Anne’s influence in the church can be proved by the appointment of evangelical bishops such as Cranmer. Both Ives and Denny point out that seven out of ten elections to episcopate were reformers with links to Anne. Pauline Croft’s view is similar to that of Haig but she is less willing to see Anne as a mere cipher for powerful relatives. She stressed the importance of court politics without diminishing Anne’s importance. She writes that ‘In her years as the leading lady at court, Anne Boleyn played a vital role as the patron and protector of evangelical reformers’³. Paul Zahl also argued that Anne Boleyn was a powerful theologian and Anne Pointer similarly saw Anne as a deep-thinking and influential theologian. She writes that although the evidence for Anne’s theological expertise is scant, Anne was very interested in religious debates and may be responsible for introducing new ideas to Henry and bringing him to see them positively. Thus Anne’s influence over the Reformation is shown.
There is also the possibility that Henry broke with Rome because he actually believed it was the right thing to do. The Pope behaved as an Italian prince, which obscured his religious role. The church had granted England one cardinal out of fifty with no hope of that cardinal ever becoming pope. Therefore, for reasons of state, it was becoming intolerable that decisions in England were settled by foreign powers. There was also the issue of Henry and Anne’s own religion. Even though the king pushed the Reformation through, it was not entirely Protestant. Much of the Catholic faith had been kept and still Protestants lobbied for further reform. This implies that the king believed in the religion and he was averse to the powers in Rome, not God. Now comes the question of Anne’s religion. Martyrologist John Foxe wrote about Anne extensively. In his eyes, Anne was a zealous reformer. He wrote that her execution was due to ‘the maintenance of Christ’s gospel, and sincere religion, which they then in no case could abide’⁴. He also concluded his ‘Oration to Saint Anne Boleyn’ by saying; ‘whatsoever can be conceived of man against that virtuous queen, I object and oppose again…’⁵ Foxe also writes of Anne giving Henry Simon Fish’s ‘Supplication for the Beggars’ and John Louth writes of how Anne persuaded Henry to read Tyndale’s ‘The Obedience of a Christian Man’. G W Bernard sees Anne differently and argues that she was a conventional Catholic, not a zealous reformer.
In considering what Foxe wrote, Bernard says that we should remember that they were writing propaganda: - ‘They were not just presenting Anne as a pious evangelical; they were attempting to retrieve her reputation in general. At the accession of Queen Elizabeth 1 in 1559, her mother stood in great need of rehabilitation: that is what in effect Foxe and Latymer attempted to do. Both purposes may have encouraged them to exaggerate, invent or misinterpret Anne’s religion’⁶. I am inclined to agree with Bernard as both Foxe and Latymer describe Anne Boleyn’s household as pious and godly living, yet there is evidence on the contrary. For example, Anne’s own words to Sir Henry Norris; ‘you loke for ded mens showys, for yf owth came to the king but good you wold loke to have me’⁷. Therefore, in this instance, I would argue that Anne’s influence over the Reformation wasn’t extremely significant due to contrary evidence of her own religious beliefs.
According to Antonia Fraser, King Henry was a ‘keen amateur theologian – one knowledgeable enough to have written that study of the sacraments for which the Pope had granted him the title of Fidei Defensor in 1521’⁸, proving that Henry was indeed religious and not only that, very proactive to defend his beliefs. On the other hand, Elton (1977) argues that there was a major Tudor revolution in government. While he credits Henry with shrewdness and intelligence, he also sees him as too lazy to take control of any matter for an extended period of time; he was an opportunist who relied on others for ideas and to do his work. His six marriages form Elton’s proof; a man who marries six wives, according to Elton, is not in total control of his own fate but rather, is at the mercy of foreign policy, government and his own school-boy whims. Therefore, Elton concludes that much action, especially the break with Rome, was the work of Thomas Cromwell as opposed to Henry himself. Elton’s view is also supported by Martin Hume, who regarded Henry VIII ‘not as the far-seeing statesman he is so often depicted for us…but rather as a weak, vain, boastful man, the plaything of his passions, which were artfully made use of by rival parties to forward religious and political ends in the struggle of giants that ended in the Reformation’⁹. This challenges Anne’s own role in the Reformation as she is dismissed as being only another one of his ‘passions’ and the entire Reformation as in fact shaped by other parties who used him to further their own religious and political advantages.
Keeping all the evidence in mind, my conclusion is that Anne Boleyn certainly wasn’t the cause of the English Reformation, although she acted as a catalyst for it. While she had a large influence on the beginnings of the revolution, this slowly diminished as her marriage to the King did so. Proof of her influence can be seen in the Pilgrimage of Grace, which took place after her death. While some say her death sparked the uprising, it is more likely it was the ‘assumption that, with her death, Henry’s split with Rome was now no longer necessary and could be reversed’¹⁰. Protestant reformers saw her as the figure-head of the revolution and her death frightened them due to their precarious position within the society of a moody king. While Anne had a significant short-term impact, it was supported by other factors, like the build up of Henry VIII’s own power and authority, wealth, matters of state, the need for a male heir and the king’s own religious beliefs. Therefore, the Reformation happened in spite of her, not because of her.
¹Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, 1989
²Part of 17 letters from the King to Anne Boleyn, circa 1524
³Anne Pointer, Five Women of The English Reformation. (Early Modern Europe) (Review) Nov, 2001
⁴John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs
⁵John Foxe, Oration to St Anne Boleyn
⁶G W Bernard, Anne Boleyn’s Religion⁷Part of a conversation, recorded by an unknown source
⁸ Antonia Fraser, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, 1992, Pg 135
⁹G R Elton, Reform and Reformation – England 1509-1558
¹⁰ Thomas Cussans, ‘The Times Kings and Queens of The British Isles’
No comments:
Post a Comment