Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Politics 1621-1625

这一拟议的版本以前几乎不为人知，也很少使用信件，由一群居住在伦敦、布鲁塞尔、巴黎和罗马的英国天主教神职人员在17世纪20年代上半叶撰写，对雅各布晚期的政治，特别是对斯图尔特政权在1621-1625年推行的王朝条约有了新的认识。这些记者之间传递的消息(英国天主教社区的高级和有影响力的神职人员，在他们自己的国家和罗马教廷有强大的赞助人)让我们看到各种压力团体是如何向斯图亚特国家提供建议和服务的。在雅各布天主教的案例中，在罗马为拟议的婚姻提供必要的教皇分配的谈判中，寻求对过度表现忠诚和提供外交援助的奖励是相当实质性的容忍措施，由皇室授予詹姆斯的天主教臣民。这加剧了詹姆斯统治结束时的政治不稳定，因为王室首先与奥地利众议院谈判，然后与波旁家族就查尔斯王子的王朝婚姻进行谈判。面对主要议员、1621年议会虔诚的议员和相当一部分公众舆论的不可调和的反对，詹姆斯试图强行通过他的政策议程，并智取反对斯图尔特继承人与天主教结婚的尖锐反对声音。为了做到这一点，他采用了一种策略，实际上是创建了一个影子天主教外交机构，代表王室在欧洲法院，特别是在罗马进行谈判。这一时期的每一位历史学家都知道，17世纪20年代初的王朝求婚使许多有争议的政治问题成为尖锐的焦点：据称斯图尔特宫廷的腐败；斯图尔特家族显然未能为泛欧洲的“新教事业”提供援助(特别是在詹姆斯的女婿之后，随着三十年战争的开始，选举人帕拉廷被驱逐出波希米亚和他自己的莱茵兰·帕拉特纳)；以及在詹姆斯的领土内部分执行宗教统一性。感觉到英国政治发生了翻天覆地的变化，英国天主教神职人员(包括这些时事通讯的作者)抓住机会介入并与王室的外交努力联系起来，以确保威尔士亲王的婚姻条约。在他们的书信中，他们描述了他们自己对那个时期的政治看法，以及他们为展示对王室的忠诚所做的努力；他们向我们描述了17世纪早期政治文化的关键方面(即使他们自己的担忧严重影响了这一点)。近年来，这一时期在历史学上一直非常有争议；特别是因为自封为修正主义者的历史学家认为，王室与其批评者(特别是在议会)在宪法和宗教问题上的冲突被夸大了。这只能是有帮助的。因此，这些通讯有一个完整的注释版本，像它们一样，评论同时代人(包括天主教徒和其他人)强烈感兴趣的问题--伊丽莎白时代宗教解决方案逆转的可能性；罗马利用条约谈判干预詹姆斯统治的可能性(特别是通过在英格兰设立天主教主教)；法院与日益敌对的议会之间的关系；英国军事干预三十年战争的前景；以及当王室似乎准备挑战(一些)新教英国人认为没有商量余地的许多假设时，各省现有的(新教)社会和政治秩序将在多大程度上保持的问题。

This proposed edition of previously almost unknown and seldom, if ever, used correspondence, written by a group of English Catholic clergymen, resident in London, Brussels, Paris and Rome during the first half of the 1620s, casts a fresh light on the politics of the late Jacobean period, and in particular on the dynastic treaties pursued by the Stuart regime in 1621-1625. The news which passed between these correspondents (highly placed and influential clerical members of the English Catholic community, with powerful patrons in their own country and in the curia at Rome) allows us to see how various pressure groups offered their advice and services to the Stuart State. In the case of Jacobean Catholicism, the reward sought for extravagant displays of loyalty and offers of diplomatic assistance in the negotiations at Rome for the necessary papal dispensation for the proposed marriages was a quite substantial measure of tolerance to be granted by the crown to James's Catholic subjects. This served to aggravate the political instability of the end of James's reign, as the crown negotiated first with the House of Austria and then the House of Bourbon for a dynastic marriage for Prince Charles. Faced with the irreconcilable opposition of leading councilors, godly members of the 1621 parliament, and substantial sections of public opinion, James tried to force through his policy agenda and to outmaneuver the strident contrary voices which balked at a Catholic marriage for the Stuart heir. One tactic which he employed in order to do this was the creation of, in effect, a shadow Catholic diplomatic service to negotiate on the crown's behalf in the courts of Europe, and in particular at Rome. As every historian of the period has been aware, the dynastic marriage proposals of the early 1620s brought into sharp focus a number of contentious political issues: the alleged corruption of the Stuart court; the Stuarts' apparent failure to render assistance to the pan-European 'Protestant cause' (particularly after James's son-in-law, the elector palatine was ejected from Bohemia and his own Rhineland palatinate as the Thirty Years war began; and the partial enforcement of religious uniformity within James's realms. Sensing a sea change in English politics, certain members of the English Catholic clergy (including the writers of these newsletters) seized the opportunity to intervene in and associate themselves with the crown's diplomatic efforts to secure a marriage treaty for the Prince of Wales. In their correspondence they describe both their own political take on the period, and their efforts to demonstrate loyalty to the crown; and they give us an account (even if heavily inflected with their own concerns) of crucial aspects of early seventeenth-century political culture.Historiographical this period has been extremely controversial in recent years; in particular as self-styled 'revisionist' historians have argued that conflict between the crown and its critics (particularly in parliament) over constitutional and religious issues has been overstated. It can only be helpful. therefore, to have a fully annotated edition of these newsletters, commenting, as they do, on issues of intense interest to contemporaries (both to Catholics and others)- the possibility of reversal of aspects of the Elizabethan settlement of religion; the likelihood that Rome would use the treaty negotiations to interfere in James's dominions (notably by setting up Catholic bishops in England); the relationship between the Court and an increasingly hostile parliament; the prospect of English military intervention in the Thirty Years War; and the issue of how far the established (Protestant) social and political order in the provinces would be maintained when it appeared that the crown was prepared to challenge many of assumptions which (some) Protestant Englishmen assumed were non-negotiable.