What Was It Really Like to Be Catholic Under Elizabeth I?

What Was It Really Like to Be Catholic Under Elizabeth I?

Was Elizabeth I persecuting Catholics simply because of their religion, or did years of rebellion, invasion threats and plots against her life convince her that Catholicism had become a political danger as well as a religious one?

Today I want to look at what life was actually like for Catholics under Elizabeth I, because their experience was not the same throughout her reign. Elizabeth did punish Catholics, and by the later decades some of those punishments became extremely severe, but her attitude hardened gradually as religion became increasingly tangled with questions of loyalty, rebellion and foreign threats.

When Elizabeth became queen on the 17th of November 1558, England had already changed religion several times within a generation. Henry VIII had broken with Rome, Edward VI had pushed England further towards Protestantism, and Mary I had restored Catholic worship. Ordinary families had lived through each change, watching the religion practised in their parish churches alter depending upon who sat on the throne.

Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement of 1559 established a Protestant Church of England and required people to attend its services. Catholics who refused became known as recusants. During the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign, however, the government was often more concerned with outward obedience than with investigating exactly what somebody believed inside their own home. Enforcement also varied considerably from place to place.

For an ordinary Catholic family, this could mean living two lives. They might attend their parish church to avoid trouble while still praying privately as Catholics, keeping religious objects hidden and maintaining older traditions within the family. Others refused to conform and faced fines, imprisonment and increasing pressure from the authorities.

One fascinating example among the nobility was Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu. He remained Catholic and had served Elizabeth’s Catholic half-sister Mary I, yet Elizabeth continued to trust him because he repeatedly demonstrated his loyalty to the Crown. He opposed parts of her religious settlement, but Elizabeth still employed him on diplomatic missions and even visited his home at Cowdray in 1591.

His story is important because it shows that being Catholic did not automatically make someone Elizabeth’s enemy.

But events during the 1560s and 1570s changed the atmosphere dramatically. In 1569, Catholic nobles led the Rising of the North, hoping to overturn Elizabeth’s religious settlement. Then, in 1570, Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth and declared that her subjects were no longer bound to obey her.

From Elizabeth’s point of view, the problem was becoming much bigger than private religious belief. Could somebody remain completely loyal to the Queen while recognising the authority of a Pope who had declared that she should not be obeyed?

The situation became even more dangerous because Mary, Queen of Scots was living in England. Mary was Catholic and had a powerful dynastic claim to the English throne and gradually became the focus of several schemes to replace Elizabeth.

Elizabeth even faced trouble from people close to her own court. Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, one of the most powerful noblemen in England and Elizabeth’s cousin, became involved in plans surrounding Mary. He was eventually implicated in the Ridolfi Plot, which proposed removing Elizabeth and placing Mary on the throne with foreign assistance. Norfolk was convicted of treason and executed on the 2nd of June 1572.

By the 1580s, Elizabeth’s government had become far more suspicious. Catholic missionary priests were secretly entering England after training abroad and travelling between Catholic households. To Catholics, these men were bringing them Mass and the sacraments. To Elizabeth’s government, men arriving secretly from institutions abroad while Catholic powers threatened England could look dangerously like agents of her enemies.

One of the best-known was Edmund Campion, who travelled secretly through England ministering to Catholic families. He was arrested in 1581, tortured, convicted of treason and executed.

Ordinary people could be caught in these laws too.

Margaret Clitherow of York was not a wealthy noblewoman or political conspirator. She was married to a butcher and had converted to Catholicism. She repeatedly refused to attend Church of England services and eventually allowed Catholic priests to hide and celebrate Mass in properties connected with her.

In 1586, she was arrested for harbouring priests. Margaret refused to enter a plea and was sentenced to the horrific punishment of being pressed to death. She was executed in York on the 25th of March 1586.

Her story perhaps shows most clearly how the religious struggle reached far beyond queens, popes and noblemen and into ordinary homes.

Another striking case was Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who had spent time at Elizabeth’s court but he was reconciled to the Catholic Church. He attempted to leave England in 1585, was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He remained there for around ten years and died in captivity in 1595.

So why did Elizabeth become increasingly harsh?

Her own experiences may also have influenced her. Her mother, Anne Boleyn, had been executed when Elizabeth was a small child. Elizabeth’s own legitimacy had been questioned, and during Mary I’s reign she had herself been imprisoned in the Tower while suspected of involvement in rebellion.

As queen she then faced the Northern Rising, papal excommunication, repeated plots involving Mary, Queen of Scots, threats from Catholic powers abroad and eventually war with Spain.

None of this lessens the suffering of people who simply wanted to practise their faith. But it does help explain why Elizabeth increasingly struggled to separate Catholic religion from political danger.

What I find most interesting is that there was never one single Catholic experience under Elizabeth. Some remained quietly Catholic and avoided serious punishment. Others paid enormous recusancy fines. By 1581 recusancy fines could reach £20 a month. Some nobles retained Elizabeth’s trust, while others found themselves imprisoned or executed.

It leaves me with a difficult question.

Was Elizabeth’s treatment of Catholics primarily religious persecution, or had the political dangers surrounding her reign made it almost impossible for her government to separate Catholic faith from the threat of rebellion?