Lollards in the 15th Century

[John Fredrick Parker]

So I’m thinking about the followers of John Wycliffe - first, just how popular were they in England from the later 14th Century to the early 16th Century? Second, how close were they to the various factions of English monarchy during this time - to John of Gaunt, the Mortimers, Henry V, the Nevilles, the Woodvilles, Henry VII, what have you?

To what extent did the success of Lollardry make some kind of distinctly “English” style of *Protestantism* inevitable? How did the course which history took in England - during the reign of the Lancasters and the War of the Roses - interact with the impact of Lollards upon England as a whole by the time of the Great Matter? And how would changing this course butterfly this religious evolution - either by making England more proto-protestant, more *orthodox* Catholic, or something else?

What if, for example, Henry V had been less successful in France? Or if Edward IV’s son successfully inherited the throne? Or something else?

 

[Old1812]

From what I understand, Lollardy was thought of as a sect of dangerous rebels. How would they get support from those in power?

 

[Ban Kulin]

The kings of England had been de facto heads of the Church in England since the Conquest, the Pope had some say in their affairs but nowhere near the pull he had on the continent. The Lollards are a danger to the power structure, and would be harshly put down or else used perhaps by urban merchant rebels. But by the 16th century the crown and the merchants were comfortably in bed I think.

Even during the War of the Roses and other periods of conflict, any noble who becomes a Lollard is asking for his allies to abandon him and the massive weight of the Church to be against him. As far as Henry VIII becoming "Protestant" (ha, ha), that was a political tool. In the de facto relation between king and clergy, nothing changed.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@Kellan Sullivan

I must confess that I'm not entirely clued up on Lollardy, although I know Gaunt was a patron. That said, Gaunt's departure for Castile in the mid-1380s was a blow to the movement, although Oxford University and some other aristocratic supporters protected Wycliffe.

Essentially, I think Wycliffe's condemning of the Wat Tyler Revolt was similar to Luther distancing himself from the German Peasant Revolt of the 1520s. It showed how easily their teachings could be co-opted into something far more sinister (object to the church this week, you'll object to the God-ordained authorities next week). Although by coming down on thd rebels, Wycliffe sort of cut the legs out from any lower class support for Lollardy. As a peasant you're hardly going to support a movement that's leader is either going to tell the upper classes it's their "right" to keep you at heel. Luther alienated some of the lower classes for the same reason IIRC.

Then Henry IV gets the throne and it's in his interests (he's a usurper, there are other people with "technically" better rights to the throne than he, etc) to suppress Lollardy. If you're worried about "legitimizing" your rule (i.e. preventing uprising in the name of Philippa of Ulster's son) you can't still be worried about religious matters. Lollard gatherings would be a convenient cover for any seditious plotting to depose Bolingbroke. So, better then to stamp it out.

PS: much of this is my opinion rather than actual fact based evidence. In theory, one could see Gaunt as Friedrich of Saxony, Wycliffe as Luther and Oxford as Wittenberg. But I'm not sure if the comparison fits quite so neatly in the box.

 

[Ban Kulin]

PS: much of this is my opinion rather than actual fact based evidence. In theory, one could see Gaunt as Friedrich of Saxony, Wycliffe as Luther and Oxford as Wittenberg. But I'm not sure if the comparison fits quite so neatly in the box.

English lords and the royal family were more subordinate to the crown than German princes were to the emperor, no? If Gaunt went off the deep end I can see him being reeled in real quick with a strong king. With a weak king, why would Gaunt work outside of existing power structures and forego the Church's support? But crazier things have happened.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

English lords and the royal family were more subordinate to the crown than German princes were to the emperor, no? If Gaunt went off the deep end I can see him being reeled in real quick with a strong king. With a weak king, why would Gaunt work outside of existing power structures and forego the Church's support? But crazier things have happened.

Gaunt was the most powerful man in the country as Lord Protector for the young Richard II. It was Gaunt's mismanagement (IIRC) that triggered Wat's Rebellion.

 

[Ban Kulin]

Gaunt was the most powerful man in the country as Lord Protector for the young Richard II. It was Gaunt's mismanagement (IIRC) that triggered Wat's Rebellion.

Oof, right you are, I'm not well versed with that period of English history. I thought Edward III would still be king.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Suppose John of Gaunt had ascended to the throne? If Richard II does at the same time as his brother of the bubonic plague, when Edward III dies you'd still have Philippa, daughter of LIonel, but I don't know how much power she'd have to become queen. And, if her husband's father dies at Crecy, she'd have to marry someone different since he's never born, so even if John of Gaunt isn't king in 1377 he would be when she dies in 1382.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Then Henry IV gets the throne and it's in his interests (he's a usurper, there are other people with "technically" better rights to the throne than he, etc) to suppress Lollardy. If you're worried about "legitimizing" your rule (i.e. preventing uprising in the name of Philippa of Ulster's son) you can't still be worried about religious matters. Lollard gatherings would be a convenient cover for any seditious plotting to depose Bolingbroke. So, better then to stamp it out.

Considering that Henry V had to deal with the Oldcastle Revolt, there may be something to that.

From what I’ve been able to gather, Richard II actually had several Lollards in his court who he was lenient with, while both Henry IV and V very notably suppressed Lollardry in their reigns. I’m less clear on how, if at all, the religious policies of Henry VI or Edward IV (or Glouchester, for that matter) differed in this respect.

What I’m particularly interested in here is what a York Victory (post Tewksbury) would mean for England’s religious context by the start of the 16th Century; putting aside the issue if the Great Matter, what would this mean for southern England’s receptibility towards any *Protestant* trends coming off the continent?