Hmmmm...I'm not sure, but would the conversion of England play a factor in changing the language of the ceremonies? Maybe not, considering the Bible still wasn't translated into English till later on...
Before 1517 when everybody in the world worshipped as a catholic the coronation ceremony of any monarch king or queen their coronation ceremony would have been said and performed in latin but when the reformation was in action which meant a creation of a new religion.The new religion being lutheranism which began in 1517 and was known as this up until 1529then it was known as prodestantism.The reformation was long process starting in 1517 an ending when the oath of supremacy was taken and then the act of supremacy was passed in 1534 when the king edventually made himself head of the english church.then the church of england was created.but any king or queen after this date when crowned the ceremony would have followed differently being if you were catholic the ceremony would have been in latin or if the monarch was prodestant the service would have been in english. This applies to any monarch who was crowned after king HenryvIII.
The Bible wasn't transalated into english until 1536 when william tyndale translated the bible from latin into english. So you could call 1534-1536 the extended part and the last final part of the reformation.
I am not quite sure what the questioner really intended. Are you asking whether the entire ceremony for every Tudor monarch was conducted in Latin, from beginning to end, after the break with Rome? Or are you instead asking whether certain religious portions ... the Mass and the anointing and consecration ... changed from Latin to English after Henry's death?MikeFan and TudorRose both seem to assume that the entire ceremony, beginning to end, was conducted in Latin prior to the break with Rome. That is not the case. Only the purely religious portions of the ceremony were ... specifically, the communion service (or Mass), and the anointing and consecration. The remainder, including the recognition, the oath, the presentation of the regalia, the crowning, the enthroning, and the homage, were all conducted in English, according to my sources. And yes, those religious portions did change from Latin to English, but not during the Tudor period. This did not occur with regard to the coronation specifically until the reign of James I in 1603. Edward VI was crowned using the old forms and the service was still in Latin. English did not come into official use in religious services until a year or two after Edward's coronation, with the first Book of Common Prayer of 1549. (Riots ensued.) But of course Mary returned the English church to Rome and she was crowned using the traditional Roman Catholic Mass in Latin. Elizabeth was also crowned using Latin. Her coronation occurred before the English Church again became officially Protestant.So, NONE of the Tudors were crowned using an all-English service and ceremony.TudorRose, your understanding of the English Reformation is deeply flawed, I am sorry to say. May I suggest that you do some background reading in order to develop a better understanding of the chronology, terminology, and concepts? I can suggest a number of basic texts, if you would like. If I have time later, I will add a very brief note on the English Reformation.
I thought the entire ceremony was conducted in Latin and I was wondering whether precedence was changed for Edward and Elizabeth's coronations. Thanks, PhD Historian for correcting me. :)
Ok, now that I have a few moments:In 1517 when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the doors of Wittenberg Cathedral, most of Western Europe (as opposed to "everybody in the world") worshipped as a Roman Catholic. After 1517, many local churches and worshippers in continental Europe, especially in Germany and Switzerland, began to change or "reform" their religious practices. Some followed Luther, others followed Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, Knox, and others.The seeds of what we call today the Reformation were actually sown long before Luther, however, with men such as Wycliffe and Hus in the 1400s. Luther simply poured water on the proverbial seed to make it grow.I am not sure why TudorRose says that the "new religion" was known as Protestantism after 1529. In fact, that term did not come into wide-spread use until somewhat later. And as noted in an earlier discussion thread, few people described themselves as "Protestants" prior to the Elizabethan Settlement of 1562 and later.Even within England, the Protestant Reformation did not begin in 1517. Instead, it began in 1531 with the Five Articles passed by Convocation as Henry pursued his divorce from Katherine of Aragon. And it did not end with the Act for the Oath of Supremacy of 1534. Examples of continuing reformation after the Act of Supremacy include the Dissolution of the Monastic Houses during the late 1530s. Then the Act of Six Articles of 1539 backtracked and re-affirmed many Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. Major doctrinal and liturgical changes were enacted later during the reign of Edward VI with the Books of Common Prayer of 1549 and 1552. Then in 1553-54, Mary restored England to Catholicism. It was not until the restoration of the Book of Common Prayer in 1559 (not 1534)and the so-called Elizabethan Settlement that the Church of England really emerged in a form that we would recognize today.The wider European Reformation is generally regarded to have been complete by 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, a war that had been in large part about religion, Catholic against Protestant. Some might argue that the English Reformation did not end until 1688 and the deposition of the Catholic James II in favor of the Protestant William and Mary. In any event, William Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament in ca 1526 did not mark either "the extended part" or the "last final part of the reformation." If anything, Tyndale's English Bible marked only the earliest beginnings of a Reformation in England that took 150 years more to complete.
Post a Comment