Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic HistoryClayton, Joseph
History
Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic History
Clayton, Joseph
Democracy; Great Britain -- History
In the autumn came an attempt to include More, with Bishop Fisher
and certain monks and friars, in the treason of the “Holy Maid of
Kent,”--Elizabeth Barton, a Canterbury nun. The “treason” amounted to
this, that the nun, who was given to prophesying, declared that God had
revealed to her to speak against Henry’s divorce, and it was sufficient
to bring her to Tyburn. But against Sir Thomas More no shred of
evidence could be procured, for none existed. He had seen the nun, and
talked with her, and “held her in great estimation,” but would neither
commit himself to a belief in her visions, nor permit any discussion on
the king’s doings; but wrote to the nun a letter which could not have
been more prudent, as he exhorted her “to attend to devotion, and not
meddle in the affairs of princes.”
The name of Sir Thomas More was struck out of the bill of attainder,
but the days of his liberty were already numbered.
The Act of Succession, passed in March, 1534, made Mary, the daughter
of Henry and Catherine, illegitimate, and Elizabeth, Anne’s child,
the heir to the throne. The act also declared that “all the nobles of
the realm, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects arrived at
full age, should be obliged to take corporal oath, in the presence
of the king or his commissioners, to observe and maintain the whole
effect and contents of the act,” under the penalties for treason for
refusal. The words of the oath were not inserted in the act, and the
commissioners drew up a formula, requiring all persons to affirm in
addition that the marriage with Catherine was invalid, and the marriage
with Anne valid, and further to recall and repudiate allegiance to any
foreign authority, prince, or potentate. This was a much larger demand
than parliament had authorised, for it contained a denial of the papal
supremacy, while all that the act had required was an acknowledgment
of the succession to the crown. The pope had only just given his final
decision on Henry’s appeal for divorce (March, 1534), and the decision
had been against the king and in favour of the marriage. The oath now
administered was in direct opposition to the supremacy of Rome, and
as such was impossible to the consciences of men like Sir Thomas More
and Bishop Fisher, though the great bulk of the clergy took it without
giving any trouble.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account