Setting the context

The break with Rome in the 1530s brought many challenges for the English Church as, following the extirpation of Roman jurisdiction under Henry viii, that body no longer owed obedience to Rome. Following the accession of Edward vi a Protestant Church emerged, to be cut short on the accession of his half-sister Mary. England's reconciliation with Rome was then itself swept away by Elizabeth's religious settlement after Mary's death in 1558. Throughout this quarter century, the question of authority and power in the Church was much debated. In a body cut off from Roman jurisdiction, where was the source of authority and what was the relationship between the papacy, monarchy and episcopacy?

This article attempts to provide answers to those questions by looking at the intriguing use of the pallium as a symbol of the power of an archbishop as metropolitan of his province. The opening sections of this article draw a picture of the nature of royal supremacy and episcopal authority from the reign of Henry viii through to the death of Mary. This picture essentially sketches the main sources of episcopal authority and jurisdiction in the period 1533–58 and provides a backdrop for the central emphasis of the essay, an examination of the differing uses of the pallium – a woollen vestment symbolising the jurisdiction which a metropolitan archbishop enjoyed – from Henry's break with Rome to the death of Elizabeth in 1603. The meaning and significance of the garment changed from reign to reign and an attempt will be made to unravel the meanings behind its use and to draw conclusions on the resulting source and nature of episcopal jurisdiction in Tudor England.

Proclaiming the royal supremacy, 1533–47

It was the Act of Supremacy of November 1534 which formally stated that the king and his successors should be acknowledged as supreme head of the Church.Footnote ¹ Such an overt assertion, however, called into question the prevailing consensus on the source of authority in that Church. When Thomas Cranmer undertook a metropolitical visitation of Canterbury province in 1533–5, the bishops of London, Winchester, Exeter, Norwich and Lincoln all protested against Cranmer's actions, as did the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.Footnote ² When Stephen Gardiner at Winchester received his citation, he stressed that Cranmer's use of the title ‘primate of all England’ was in derogation of the king's position as supreme head of the Church.

The issue at stake, the source of authority in the English Church, was tackled by the Henrician government which delivered commissions to the bishops for the exercise of their jurisdiction. It was for the king, as supreme head of the Church, to instruct the episcopate with rules by which their episcopal functions were to be deployed. Thomas Cranmer's Henrician commission was issued out of the court of Thomas Cromwell, who acted as the king's vicegerent in ecclesiastical causes.Footnote ³ This commission covers administrative powers formerly exercised by medieval archbishops of Canterbury following provision by the pope. Cranmer was able to ordain men to livings, to institute men to benefices in the diocese of Canterbury, to collate clerics to livings in his gift, to prove the wills of men having goods, rights and credits (‘bona, iura sive credita’) in more than one diocese according to the custom of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, to proceed in causes in his courts and to do all else necessary. However, Cranmer's powers were now made to rest explicitly on the king's position as supreme head of the Church.

Significantly, Cranmer's commission did not authorise him to undertake visitations. The purpose of this omission was to allow the crown itself to undertake a visitation of the Church through the vicegerent. An inhibition was addressed to Cranmer, and through him to the diocesan bishops, in September 1535. By the terms of this, ecclesiastical officials were forbidden to exercise their powers of jurisdiction.Footnote ⁴ Further traces of royal activity are rather thin on the ground. However, two sets of injunctions were issued in 1536 and 1538, which helped to shape the future direction of the English Church and the duties of those who sat on the episcopal bench.Footnote ⁵ The visitation ended in 1537 and powers of visitation were returned to the bishops. Edward Fox at Hereford seems to have been the first prelate to receive such a licence.Footnote ⁶ Cranmer's licence has not survived, but it is clear from his letters that he did receive one.Footnote ⁷

The role of the king as supreme head of the Church continued in the reign of Edward vi, whose government adopted a position similar to that of the previous monarch. Cranmer's commission as archbishop of Canterbury lasted at Henry's pleasure only and, accordingly, it had lapsed on Henry's death in 1547. The Edwardian regime proceeded to issue fresh commissions and Cranmer received his from Edward on 7 February 1547.Footnote ⁸ Edward likewise undertook royal visitations and issued injunctions.Footnote ⁹

The new commission, at pleasure, to Thomas Cranmer empowered him to exercise his jurisdiction within the diocese and province of Canterbury. The preamble emphasised that the powers of all magistrates, both ecclesiastical and secular, emanated from the crown and from the king as supreme head. Such jurisdiction had been exercised precariously, and the king wished men to recognise that it was granted by the crown alone. In response to the archbishop's requests, the king licensed him to ordain men from the diocese of Canterbury who were suitable in learning and morals. He could admit, institute, invest or deprive those presented to benefices within the diocese, if they were suitable, and collate men to benefices in his own gift. He was to prove the wills of those who had goods in several dioceses or jurisdictions, and to administer the goods of all those who died intestate, according to the custom of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and to prove wills and administer goods within his diocese. He could judge all ecclesiastical causes which came before him; he could also appoint deputies. A general clause empowered him to do all else necessary ‘beyond and above those tasks which are acknowledged to be granted to you by God in Holy Scripture’ (‘preter et ultra ea que tibi ex sacris litteris divinitus commisa dinoscuntur’). Any previous inhibition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was to be of no effect. The king enjoined the archbishop to perform his office according to the norms of Holy Scripture and to ensure that he admit no one to holy orders or to have cure of souls unless their character, learning and other qualifications were exemplary, for the corruption of all virtue, especially within the Christian religion, stemmed from wicked pastors. If faithful shepherds were appointed, the king did not doubt but that the true religion of Christ would be restored and an improvement in men's lives and manners ensue.

The accession of Mary I: all change, 1553–8

The accession of Mary to the throne in 1553 posed enormous challenges for the Tudor episcopate and for the question of authority in the Church. The consensus of Henry's years, following the break with Rome, and of Edward vi’s reign could no longer apply when Mary wished to return the Church to Roman obedience. How would this transition be made and where then would the locus of authority in the Church be found?

When Mary issued writs for her first convocation on 14 August 1553, Cranmer's register at Lambeth shows that these documents used a royal style entirely in keeping with that of her half-brother, Edward vi, and her father Henry viii. The writ styled the monarch as ‘Mary, by the grace of God queen of England, France and Ireland, defender of the faith and supreme head of the English and Irish Church’ (‘MARIA DEI GRACIA ANGLIE, FRANCIE ET HIBERNIE regina FIDEI DEFENSOR et in terra ecclesie Anglicane et Hibernice supremum caput’).Footnote ¹⁰

Mary's use of the title ‘supreme head’, however, was not to last, for she was determined to restore papal supremacy and to repeal the religious acts passed by her father. The reference to ‘supreme head’ was included in the style and title prefixed to the parliamentary record for 1 Mary session 2 (24 Oct.– 6 Dec 1553). Later it was omitted on Mary's decision, without parliamentary approval, in the style and title prefixed to the record for 1 Mary session 3 (2 Apr.–5 May 1554), and presumably remained omitted in all documents up to her marriage – and proclamation of her joint style and title with Philip of Spain – on 25 July 1554.

In July 1554 the joint style of Philip and Mary was announced as ‘Philip and Mary, by the grace of God king and queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, and Ireland; defenders of the faith; princes of Spain and Sicily; archdukes of Austria; dukes of Milan, Burgundy, and Brabant; counts of Hapsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol’ (‘Philippus et Maria, Dei gratia rex et regina Anglie, Francie, Neapolis, Ierusalem, et Hibernie; fidei defensores; principes Hispanie et Sicilie; archiduces Austrie; duces Mediolani, Burgundie, et Brabancie; comites Haspurgi, Flandrie, et Tirolis’). Further changes applied later in the reign, but the use of the title ‘supreme head’ did not figure in Mary's official style after July 1554.Footnote ¹¹ It was officially abolished by Mary's second Repeal Act of 1554, which restored the ecclesiastical status quo of 1529.Footnote ¹²

Although Mary rejected the use of the style ‘supremum caput’, she was certainly capable of using powers formerly associated with the title when it suited her. She did not issue commissions to the bishops of her realm, but was happy in 1554 to use the mechanism of royal injunctions.Footnote ¹³ These made it clear that no bishop was to style himself ‘supported by royal authority’ (‘regia auctoritate fulcitus’), nor was an oath of supremacy to be demanded of ecclesiastics.

Mary was focussed on reconciling the kingdom to Rome and this formed the basis of her polity for transforming the Church.Footnote ¹⁴ On becoming queen she inherited twenty-three bishops, all of whom had accepted the Edwardian settlement; two bishoprics were vacant (Rochester and Bangor) and John Hooper held two sees (Gloucester and Worcester). Under her half-brother Edward vi, bishops had been appointed by the simple issue of letter patent.Footnote ¹⁵ This process was abolished by Mary's first Repeal Act of 1553.Footnote ¹⁶ The man who would support her in this was Cardinal Reginald Pole, for it was he who was tasked with reconciling the realm to the Holy See and with repatriating the episcopate as an instrument of that reconciliation after years of schism. Looking back on events in 1556, as he addressed the citizens of London, Pole saw that it was Henry's assumption of the supreme headship which was the start of disaster: ‘And in lyke maner, all the tyme the arche was in the Kynge's hande, as yt was, he takynge that straunge tytle upon him, to be Hedd of the Chyrche in his realme.’Footnote ¹⁷

Pole's original commissions are recorded in his Canterbury register at Lambeth.Footnote ¹⁸ He was awarded two sets of Faculties – the Bulla Facultatum Communium and the Facultatem Extraordinarium, both dated 5 August 1553. However, these were not specific enough and on 8 March 1554 the pope issued an amplification of Pole's powers.Footnote ¹⁹ These new powers were particularly important in allowing Pole to reconstitute the English episcopate. The new faculties enabled him to confirm the appointments of bishops made by Henry viii and Edward vi, and to provide men for vacant sees at the request of the queen. Those bishops appointed under Henry could exercise their gift of consecration or, if it had not been received, obtain it from a Catholic bishop. Those appointed under Edward could be promoted to all orders, including the priesthood; in addition they could be given the ‘gift of consecration’ (‘munus consecrationis’).

A marked feature of Marian episcopal polity before Pole arrived in England was the widespread deprivation of priests.Footnote ²⁰ By June 1554 thirteen Edwardian bishops had been deprived. Of these, six had been ordained with the Edwardian Ordinal, so their status as bishops was disallowed as well.Footnote ²¹ Mary was in need of new bishops as replacements and proceeded to appoint them. These men, however, first needed dispensation from ecclesiastical censures. Pole provided this and proof is found in his legatine register, Registrum expeditorum in Anglia factarum per illustrissimum & reverendissimum cardinalem Polum legatum, a neglected resource for Tudor church history.Footnote ²² In a dispensation issued outside Paris (before he even arrived in England) and dated 17 March 1554, Pole absolved seven named episcopal candidates from heresy and schism.Footnote ²³ The seven men were Robert Wharton, John White, Gilbert Bourne, James Brooks, George Cotes, Henry Morgan and Maurice Griffith. Wharton had already been consecrated as bishop of St Asaph in Henry viii’s reign in 1536. That consecration being regarded as valid, reconsecration was deemed unnecessary and a dispensation was all that was required. The remaining six men were all consecrated together on 1 April 1554.Footnote ²⁴ Pole's actions were interesting because, technically speaking, his legatine authority was not valid in England until 10 November 1554, and actually his attainder could not be repealed until parliament on the 22nd.Footnote ²⁵ These episcopal appointments established a process for the formal appointment of new bishops in communion with the see of Rome to support England's reconciliation to the Holy See.

The next stage in rehabilitating the kingdom to Rome took place on 30 November, when Pole formally absolved the Church from schism.Footnote ²⁶ The reconciliation emphasised that Henry viii and Edward vi, at the instigation of the devil, had passed laws against the pope, and specifically laws stating that the king was supreme head. Rejecting such claims, Pole absolved the whole realm through his powers as legate a latere, restoring everything to a pristine state.

Pole's actions in appointing new bishops in March 1554 threw a light on the need to reconcile bishops already in post and his legatine register shows how this was accomplished. Records are found here for the reconciliation of bishops, for example Cuthbert Tunstall at Durham, George Day at Chichester, Robert Aldrich at Carlisle and John Chamber at Peterborough.Footnote ²⁷ Not all the individual reconciliations are recorded; there is, for example, no record for Stephen Gardiner at Winchester. Restored in August 1553, Gardiner apparently asked for absolution, or at least expressed his repentance in a letter, now missing. Instead of granting absolution, Pole emphasised God's grace to Gardiner which had prevented him from falling into heresy after schism. Pole told Gardiner in a second letter that obedience must come first.Footnote ²⁸

Following the actions of November 1554, the reconciliation of the kingdom to Rome needed to be promulgated and Pole saw that the bishops were key to this task. He delivered instructions to them on 29 January 1555, and to other officials, on how to tackle this job. When announcing the reconciliation, bishops and others were specifically to dwell on the misery of Henry viii’s schism.Footnote ²⁹ Pole stressed that, since Canterbury province represented almost all persons in the kingdom, it was impossible for him personally to reconcile everyone. Therefore, he was delegating this task to his bishops and other officials. Pole's legatine register shows how widely this faculty was disseminated. The document is headed ‘Faculty to be granted to each and every bishop’ (‘Facultas singulis episcopis concedenda’).Footnote ³⁰ The registered copy is addressed to Stephen Gardiner as bishop of Winchester and the legatine register goes onFootnote ³¹ to list all the recipients of this document. The list is headed by a group of nineteen bishops – London, Bristol, Gloucester, Durham, Bath and Wells, Lincoln, Chester, Rochester, Norwich, St David's, Chichester, Carlisle, Coventry and Lichfield, Hereford, Peterborough, Oxford, Salisbury, Llandaff and Worcester. Other recipients are listed after this.Footnote ³² The bishops clearly understood the import of what Pole was asking them to do. After Gardiner, the first named recipient in Pole's legatine register is Edmund Bonner, bishop of London. Bonner received Pole's commission dated 29 January 1555, and on 19 February he sent it to the archdeacons of London, Middlesex, Essex, St Albans and Colchester to be published in their archdeaconries. He added a covering note telling the archdeacons to select learned men to deal with any queries about absolution and to absolve their clerics first before their flocks.Footnote ³³

The years 1533–58 were crucial in determining the role of the episcopate in early modern England. Immediately following the extirpation of Roman jurisdiction, bishops effectively became civil servants under the crown. Henry never claimed an overt power of orders (‘potestas ordinis’) over the clergy, but he issued commissions to the bishops, inhibited their jurisdictions, undertook royal visitations, drew up injunctions and firmly grounded the authority of the episcopate in the role of the king as supreme head. As with Henry viii, so with his son Edward vi, who continued the Henrician mode of management in the Church. Henry's daughter Mary quickly renounced the title supreme head, although she was still capable of using those powers formerly associated with this rank. Her need to reconcile the English Church to Rome resulted in a series of elaborate processes to deprive schismatical bishops, rehabilitate others and then appoint fresh blood to the episcopal bench. Inherent in this move was a reliance on the renewed role of the episcopate to effect reconciliation. The role of a bishop had thus been both defined and reinterpreted in the twenty-five years after 1533. What significance did this have for the traditional emblems of episcopal authority and power? It is this which is the main subject of this article.

The use of the pallium at the break with Rome

In the medieval Church, the symbol of authority for a metropolitan archbishop was the pallium – for many centuries bestowed by the pope on metropolitans and primates as a symbol of the jurisdiction delegated to them by Rome. The pallium signified the fullness of the pontifical office (‘plenitudinem pontificalis officii’) which an archbishop was to enjoy as metropolitan of his province. Nicholas Hawkins, successor to Thomas Cranmer as ambassador to Emperor Charles v, wrote to Henry viii from Bologna on 22 February 1533 that ‘This pall is a pece of white cloth made of the wool of certen lambis, whiche the Pope halowith, and consecrate [sic] bi the Pope, and leide upon St Petre his sepulchre.’Footnote ³⁴

The bulls for Thomas Cranmer's canonical appointment to the see of Canterbury are recorded in his register at Lambeth.Footnote ³⁵ The government wanted a prelate, outwardly in communion with Rome, who would be able to end Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. On 22 February 1533 there was despatched notification to the archbishop of the form of the oath of loyalty to be taken to the Holy See at his consecration.Footnote ³⁶ On 3 March notification was sent to Cranmer (via the archbishop of York and the bishop of London) of the despatch of the pallium.Footnote ³⁷ The form of words to be used at the bestowal of the pallium is carefully recorded. Cranmer was to note that the garment was ‘taken from the body of St Peter, symbolising the fullness of the pontifical office’ (‘de corpore Beati Petri sumptum, plenitudinem videlicet pontificalis officii’).Footnote ³⁸ The wording of all the papal bulls was in common form throughout. The form of the oath of loyalty to the holy see, which Cranmer was to swear, was exactly the same, with minor verbal variations, as that sworn by William Warham on his translation to Canterbury.Footnote ³⁹ On 21 February Hawkins wrote to the king concerning the cost of the bulls, telling him that the pallium would cost 1,000 ducats.Footnote ⁴⁰

The use of the pallium in Cranmer's consecration is illustrated in what is otherwise a very odd document in Cranmer's register – a protestation, made several times during the ceremony, by which Cranmer wished to make clear that, despite his papal bull of provision, he would accept his appointment at the hands of the king and of no one else. It was, morally, a dubious act and legally an act of perjury. However, Cranmer swore this protestation as a matter of conscience and the king, desperate to secure a canonically-appointed archbishop, supported him and advised him how to proceed to salve his conscience.Footnote ⁴¹ After the solemnities of his consecration in St Stephen's chapel, Westminster, the archbishop stood before the high altar ‘to receive the pallium’ (‘ante dictum summum altare pallium recepturus’). Before he would recite the form of words prescribed to be read, Cranmer again swore that he understood the words only in the sense of his earlier protestation. He swore an oath of loyalty to the pope, but made clear that he understood its terms only in the sense of his earlier protestation.

It was in 1534 that the government issued new regulations for the appointment of bishops.Footnote ⁴² After 1534 letters missive sent by the crown to the cathedral chapter became in effect papal bulls of provision. Capitular election of the royal nominee and metropolitical confirmation of that election were simply formalities to complete the process. As late as 1535 renunciations of papal jurisdiction were obtained from bishops appointed before the statute of 1534. Seventeen renunciations survive, eleven dating from February, four from March, one from April and one from June.Footnote ⁴³ So thorough were the government's actions that even bishops appointed after the statute of 1534 made the renunciation.Footnote ⁴⁴ Cranmer formally renounced his appointment at the hands of the pope on 10 February 1535.Footnote ⁴⁵ With minor variations, the text is the same as that sworn by Roland Lee.Footnote ⁴⁶ The oath made no explicit mention of the pallium, even though the bestowal of this garment was closely linked in the medieval English Church with the offering of an oath of loyalty to the pope. It was to be a significant omission, and it helps to explain how the Tudor Church continued to use the pallium after the break with Rome.

Later uses of the pallium, 1534–40

Historians have sometimes noted the use of the pallium in heraldic devices after the English Church's break with Rome and Cranmer himself used it in glass in his palaces. Such stained glass, dated to about 1535, survives in the Victoria and Albert Museum; this has Cranmer's arms which use the pallium, along with his motto ‘Nosce teipsum et deum’ (‘Know yourself and God’).Footnote ⁴⁷ The pallium was also used as an illustrative device in Cranmer's seals.Footnote ⁴⁸ A good example appears in the two states of Cranmer's general seal, 1534 and 1540. In this seal, the martyrdom of Archbishop Thomas Becket has been replaced by a representation of the crucifixion. This change took place from 1538 and underlines both Cranmer's support for the royal supremacy and his own evangelical leanings. Even in 1540, however, the pallium still appears (as an intriguing decorative feature) as part of the altered impaled coat of arms of the archdiocese and priory at the bottom left (the dexter side) in the later seal.

No further evidence has yet been found concerning the use of the pallium in the sixteenth century in such architectural or formal archival settings. However, the main use of this garment after the break with Rome was as part of the procedure for archiepiscopal appointments. During Cranmer's rule, the archbishop was called upon to confirm elections to archiepiscopal sees. Robert Holgate was appointed to York in 1545 and George Browne to Dublin in 1536.Footnote ⁴⁹ In both cases, the solemnities of consecration included the bestowal of the pallium. In the acts recording the consecration of George Browne to Dublin, the record shows that on 19 March 1536 the archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the bishops of Salisbury and Worcester, consecrated Browne and surrendered the pallium to him. The relevant documents comprise two sets of letters patent giving the king's assent to Browne's election to the see of Dublin and a note of Browne's consecration, when the pallium was handed to him.

Both sets of letters patent were formally despatched to the archbishop, which is why they have been entered in the legal record of Browne's appointment and consecration in Cranmer's register. Both letters bear the same date, 13 March 1536. The first letter is general in tone and makes no mention of the relevant parliamentary statute governing the appointment, nor of the grant of the pallium. This was not good enough, and a second copy of the letters patent was despatched, clearly asking the archbishop to confirm Browne's election, to consecrate him as archbishop and to bestow the pallium upon him. Browne was to receive episcopal insignia and Cranmer was commanded to perform all that was necessary in that regard.

The record of Browne's appointment in Cranmer's register is full, but the surviving documents contain no real definition as to the meaning that the pallium now held, following the extirpation of Roman jurisdiction in England. The records do, however, make three things clear: it was for the crown to command that the pallium be granted to the incoming archbishop as metropolitan; it was the role of the archbishop of Canterbury to bestow the pallium at the request of the crown; and the pallium was a sign of Browne's new archiepiscopal authority, although how and why this is the case is not discussed.Footnote ⁵⁰

Uses of the pallium, 1540–7

Robert Holgate was nominated to the see of York in 1545. His York register contains no relevant material concerning his appointment,Footnote ⁵¹ but the documents entered into Cranmer's register are much fuller and can be divided into four sections. It is instructive to compare the form of the materials in Cranmer's register which relate to Holgate's appointment to York with those recorded in Henry Chichele's Canterbury register over a century earlier,Footnote ⁵² because there are significant differences. The dominant figure in Chichele's appointment is the pope himself. It is the pope who sends the pallium and this action dictates the sequence of events thereafter as, on its receipt, Chichele immediately offered an oath of loyalty to the Holy See. Over a century later, how exactly was the pallium administered to Holgate and what was its significance and meaning? The documents in Cranmer's register shed light on this.Footnote ⁵³

On 26 January 1545 the archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the bishops of Westminster and Chichester, assembled in the chapel at Lambeth Palace. All the stages in the confirmation of Holgate's election were completed on that day and Cranmer then issued his definitive sentence. Following this, the archbishop's chaplain, dressed in appropriate vestments, celebrated a private mass. After the mass, the archbishop of York, dressed in pontificals, knelt before Cranmer and his colleagues, who were sitting in front of the altar wearing their mitres. The archbishop of Canterbury blessed the pallium, a sign of the fullness of the archiepiscopal office and, with his fellow bishops as his assistants, he laid it on the archbishop of York's shoulders, following the confirmation of his election. Cranmer was requested to inform the king that he had confirmed the election, but that the archdeacon of York should be ordered to enthrone the new archbishop, according to custom. Cranmer agreed, ordering that public instruments be drawn up to record all the acts.

Cranmer's register shows, as in the records concerning Browne's appointment to Dublin, that it was the role of the archbishop of Canterbury formally to invest the new archbishop with the pallium. When Cranmer received his pallium in 1533, the garment was first blessed by the pope.Footnote ⁵⁴ For Holgate, it was Cranmer who blessed the woollen pallium and bestowed it on the new archbishop. When Holgate was appointed to York, the significance of the pallium is described simply and plainly as ‘a sign of the fullness of the archiepiscopal office’. Holgate required no consecration as he proceeded to York from the see of Llandaff;Footnote ⁵⁵ the bestowal of the pallium therefore took place after a celebration of the mass. Cranmer blessed the pallium and then he and his episcopal colleagues laid it on Holgate's shoulders.

In this record, the pallium is not even connected to Holgate's oath of obedience to the king. At Cranmer's own consecration, in 1533, the pallium was closely linked to the new archbishop swearing an oath of loyalty to the pope. Clearly, in Holgate's appointment to York, there is no reference to the pope. Instead, Holgate swore an oath to the king, his heirs and successors, according to a statute of 35 Henry VIII,Footnote ⁵⁶ and the archbishop of Canterbury then delivered the definitive sentence. The bestowal of the pallium took place later in the ceremonies, in fact after the private mass which was celebrated by Cranmer's chaplain. Holgate was present in person throughout the whole proceedings and Cranmer had invited him to sit on a throne next to his.Footnote ⁵⁷ The placing of the bestowal of the pallium at the end of the ceremonies seems to confirm the vagueness in the significance of that garment in the English Church of the 1540s.

Section 2 of the acts in Holgate's appointment adds little to our understanding. The trigger for the pallium to be given to Holgate by Cranmer was once again the receipt by the latter of a mandate from the king signifying his assent to Holgate's appointment, ordering Cranmer to bestow the pallium and to invest Holgate with appropriate insignia. Similarly, section 3 says little more, being a set of summary articles from the dean and chapter of York, which were delivered by their proctor to Cranmer in Lambeth. Article 6 confirms that, in letters patent, the king signified his assent to the archbishop of Canterbury and his assistant bishops to Holgate's appointment, ordering them to confirm the election, to bestow the pallium and to invest the new archbishop with appropriate insignia.

Section 4 of the acts, however, is much more informative, as it gives a detailed description of the prayers and form of words to be used before, during and after the blessing and bestowal of the pallium. What is the significance of these texts and what do they reveal about the use of the pallium in Holgate's appointment? The prayers before the bestowal of that garment reveal that it was to be regarded as a sign of Holgate's archiepiscopal authority (‘hoc pontificalis dignitatis plenitudinis insigne’). All those who possessed such a symbol of honour were to use it before the people so that it could illuminate their deeds and grant heavenly rewards. Here the emphasis is not on the recipient, nor the donor, but on the people who are witnesses to the use of the pallium. When it is blessed by being sprinkled with water, the invocation is to the Almighty (in whose honour the pallium is used) to bless that garment.

Further clarity comes from the forms and words used at the bestowal of the pallium itself. The source of human authority for the bestowal of the garment is naturally different from that laid down in medieval canon law. A comparison of the form of words used in 1414 when Henry Chichele was provided to the see of Canterbury by the pope with those used at Holgate's appointment in 1545 reveals the point.Footnote ⁵⁸ Whereas the fifteenth-century formula stressed that the pallium was taken ‘from the body of St Peter’ (‘de corpore Beati Petri’), the sixteenth-century text omitted all reference to St Peter and stressed simply that the pallium was ‘a sign of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (‘sacerdotii domini nostri Jesu Christi signum’). More significantly, however, the fifteenth-century text laid down that the pope was the sole human agent responsible for the bestowal of the woollen garment. The Tudor rite, however, maintained that the pallium was bestowed in honour of Henry viii ‘to whom, and to none other, you have a duty of obedience and loyalty, to the honour of the English Church’ (‘cui soli et nulli alii obedienciam et fidelitatem debes et exhibuisti in decus ecclesie Anglicane’). Finally, at the end of Holgate's record, the focus switches to its recipient, with an invocation to the Almighty to illumine the archbishop, whom he has honoured with the holiness of the pallium.

The significance of the use of the pallium in the Henrician Church

The surviving records highlight an interesting dilemma which faced a Church cut off from Roman jurisdiction. In Cranmer's appointment to Canterbury, the crown needed an archbishop outwardly in communion with Rome to settle Henry's marital cause with Catherine of Aragon. Here, the pallium was despatched from Rome according to precedent and a reluctant archbishop forced to accept it. Why did the Tudor Church, why did the archbishop of Canterbury, continue to use this garment after the break with Rome? Was it the new order trying to cling to pieces of the old which had no meaning in a new context? Although the records are fragmentary, the appointment of Browne to Dublin and Holgate to York show that this was not the case.

First and foremost, the pallium was now a sign of the crown's supremacy in the Church. This is why the records stress repeatedly that it is for the king to bestow this garment on the archbishop. Clearly, this is a fundamental change in the medieval understanding of the pallium, where it was bestowed by the pope himself, with the garment being taken from the body of St Peter. The Henrician Church therefore infused the garment with a new symbolism. It remained a symbol of an archbishop's authority, but an authority which was bestowed by the crown and enunciated in the royal grant of a commission to Cranmer for the exercise of his jurisdiction.

Holgate's appointment to York reveals further subtleties in the continued use of the pallium, which were not known in the medieval Church and may not have underpinned the appointment of Browne to Dublin. Do these changes indicate a developing view in the English Church of the use of this garment? Alas, the sources are too fleeting for us to be sure, but it may be that this was the case.

At various points in Holgate's ceremony, the emphasis on the use of the garment falls on the people who witness the ceremonies, and on Holgate himself as the recipient. In terms of the use of the pallium in the late medieval Church, these are not definitions of use which would have been accorded to the garment of lamb's wool being used. The pallium is also called a sign of the priesthood of Jesus Christ himself, not simply a sign of archiepiscopal authority. Is this a reflection of an attempt by Cranmer to infuse additional evangelical meaning into the retention of a medieval garment? The surviving evidence does not allow us to be sure, and Holgate's record is quick to emphasise that the bestowal of the pallium is a sign of the supremacy of Henry viii in the Church.Footnote ⁵⁹

It is clear, none the less, that the bestowal of the pallium was not an anachronism, nor a casual survival of a medieval symbol.Footnote ⁶⁰ It was rather a powerful demonstration of the reality of the royal supremacy within the Church. When Henry viii claimed to bestow this garment upon Holgate and Browne of Dublin, the nature of that insignia changed from being papal and sacerdotal to political and religious. The pallium continued to be a sign of metropolitical authority, but it was for the king alone on earth to appoint archbishops and to bestow jurisdiction upon them.

The use of the pallium after 1547

The Church under Edward vi did not concern itself with the use and significance of the pallium, as no English archbishop was appointed during this reign. Under Mary, however, the story was different.

On 23 October 1553 George Dowdall was restored as archbishop of Armagh. He had been nominated on 19 April 1543 under Henry viii and consecrated in December. However, he lost faith in the Tudor religious settlement and is deemed to have deserted his see before 28 July 1551.Footnote ⁶¹ Did Dowdall receive the pallium on his appointment under Henry viii? Alas, the records shed no light on this, as Dowdall's register survives only as a later compendium of extracts.Footnote ⁶² On his restitution under Mary, however, Dowdall certainly received a papal pallium on 23 August 1555 ‘taken from the body of St Peter’ (‘de corpore Beati Petri sumptum’).Footnote ⁶³ There is also a record of the papal use of the pallium in the appointment of Hugh Curwin to Dublin in 1555. He was provided by the pope on 21 June; the pallium was granted on 23 August 1555 and Curwen was consecrated on 8 September 1555 at St Paul's Cathedral.Footnote ⁶⁴

Considerable interest attaches to the record of the appointment of Nicholas Heath as archbishop of York. Heath was formally dispensed and absolved by Cardinal Pole at the beginning of 1555 (10 February) because neither his orders nor his appointment (as bishop of Worcester) were recognised.Footnote ⁶⁵ Robert Holgate was deprived of the archbishopric in 1554, whereupon Heath was translated to the see by papal provision on 21 June 1555. As legatus natus it was to be Heath's responsibility to consecrate Reginald Pole to Canterbury after Cranmer's burning, on 22 March 1556. Heath's York register begins on folio 111 with copies of two papal bulls confirming his election and conferring the pallium on him in October 1555.Footnote ⁶⁶ The first (wrongly annotated in the margin of the register as a bull to confirm the election of the archbishop) is actually the papal bull of provision, dated June 1555. Heath as archbishop is to be ‘father and pastor of souls’ (‘patrem et pastorem animarum suarum’), with regards to those who owe him obedience; he is to be consecrated archbishop by two or three catholic bishops, once the archbishop has sworn the oath of loyalty to the pope; the text is spelled out, in common form. The second bull, dated at St Mark's in Rome on 30 October 1555, releases Heath from any ecclesiastical censure or interdict. The bull recites the difficulties faced by the kingdom in previous years under Henry viii and Edward vi, describing them as ‘pretensis Anglie regibus’ (‘so-called kings of England’), who made schismatic appointments to the sees of Worcester and Rochester (both sees previously held by Heath). To enable Heath to take possession of the church of York, and to rule as archbishop and metropolitan, ‘you are to receive dispensation, as by the same authority by the tenor of these present letters by a gift of special grace we do grant you dispensation’ (‘dispensatum fuisset prout eadem auctoritate tenore presentium de specialis dono gracie dispensamus’). Nothing else survives in Heath's register at York concerning the granting of the pallium.

The most important episcopal register in Mary's reign to make mention of the pallium is Reginald Pole's Canterbury register and the supporting material recording his appointment as Cranmer's successor at Canterbury. Pole's Canterbury register has a very full record of his appointment.Footnote ⁶⁷ It is clear that the Henrician innovations in the bestowal of the pallium were swept away by the Marian regime. As if to underline the schism of the Churches of Henry viii and Edward vi, the Marian Church consciously reverted to the forms of ceremony for the bestowal of the pallium that had existed in medieval England. In Pole's appointment, the bestowal of this medieval symbol of authority was once more explicitly linked to Pole's swearing of the oath of loyalty to Rome. Pole received the pallium only after he had offered an oath of loyalty to the pope (‘prestito primitus per eundem reverendissimum dominum archiepiscopum iuramento in eodem diplomate apostolica de scripto’).Footnote ⁶⁸ The oath of loyalty, which Pole swore, is in common form throughout. The form of words used at the bestowal of the pallium addressed to Pole were, mutatis mutandis, identical to those used in the medieval English Church. Pope Paul iv granted Pole the pallium, taken from the body of St Peter, as a sign of his pontifical office, to be used in his Church on those days certified as such by the apostolic see.Footnote ⁶⁹

Clearly, Pole and the Roman Church were concerned to abolish the schismatic deeds of the Churches of Henry viii and Edward vi. What better way to do this than to return to the purity of medieval precedent and practice? This is not all, however, that survives concerning Pole's receipt of the woollen garment. As his register records, ‘the most reverend father gave a sermon to the people, which both pointed to salvation and was full of insight, concerning the bread and the peace, explaining amongst other things the significance of the pallium and the material from which it was made’ (‘ac consequenter ipse reverendissimus pater concionem quondam salutarem et luculentam habuit ad populum de pane et pace, exponendo inter alia significationem pallii et materiam confectionis eiusdem’).Footnote ⁷⁰

Pole's register does not record the text of his sermon, and this is a pity because it would be unique to have a sermon, and a sermon in English at that, which talks in such detail about the significance of the pallium. However, several versions of the text do survive and these have been expertly analysed by the late Professor Tom Mayer.Footnote ⁷¹ There are four main versions of the sermon, which is Pole's first sermon written in English (‘homilia prima Anglice scripta’).Footnote ⁷² Three are in ms Vat. Lat. 5968, in the Vatican Library. There is also a summary of the sermon in Italian by Pole's secretary Marcantonio Faita. Faita said that Pole had improvised (‘all'improviso’) in his sermon, but this is scarcely likely when the archbishop had a retinue of scribes in his team (‘familia’) to prepare material for him. Faita's report runs very close to Pole's own words. Either Pole and his team had prepared his sermon in advance, or else Faita had Pole's own draft before him when he pretended to write his own analysis of the text.Footnote ⁷³

Pole's sermon as a whole reads rather awkwardly in English. It is long, repetitive and not always intelligible. His appointment and consecration are the subject of many references in his surviving correspondence.Footnote ⁷⁴ On 14 December 1555 Pope Paul iv wrote to the bishops consecrating Pole, telling them that the pallium was being brought to England by Thomas Somerset, probably a mistake for the Somerset Herald, Edmund Atkinson.Footnote ⁷⁵ On 26 January 1556, Pole wrote to Pope Paul iv saying that he was loath to accept promotion to Canterbury, but the vicar of Christ's testimony and praise had won him over.Footnote ⁷⁶ On 17 February Pole wrote to Philip of Spain that he had received his bulls and so had begun to arrange for his consecration at Canterbury. He hoped to have the permission of Philip and the queen to go there for Palm Sunday. In fact, Pole never went to Canterbury. He apparently resisted efforts to have the ceremonies made into a major occasion, although Mary supposedly gave him vestments worth 10,000 ducats and Faita said that a major entry had been planned. When this did not come to pass, Pole reportedly gave the money to the poor.Footnote ⁷⁷

On 25 March, when Pole received the pallium at St Mary le Bow,Footnote ⁷⁸ his register records that the archbishop gave a sermon which amongst other things talked of the significance of that garment and the material from which it was made. In his sermon, Pole stressed that it was not permitted for any patriarch or archbishop to use their authority before they had received their pallium:

Pole stressed that such authority should not be used before recognition is made of the unity of the body together with the head, from whom that authority is derived, which is signified by the pallium taken from the body of St Peter. Pole invoked the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria and Cyprian to prove his point. He then went on to give examples of the dangers of disunity, naming Constantinople and Ravenna. These cities, according to Pole, prove that prelates should not exercise their authority before they have received the pallium, from which their authority came. Pole went on to describe the material of which the pallium was made, a very base material if it is compared with the rest of the clothing and ornaments that an archbishop wears. The pallium is neither made of precious material, nor yet of any exquisite work, but of the simplest material and stitching that can be found. What material can be imagined more simple than a band made of a lamb's fleece, without any ornaments but only black crosses? What does this collar signify to us? It symbolises the very fountain from which all that is precious in heaven or earth is derived, ‘whiche is the Lambe that bare the crosse’. The pallium allows the recipient to receive the ‘plenitudinem potestatis’, which is

By way of conclusion, Pole confirmed ‘And so haveng understood that, with receiving the paulle I have received withal full authoritie to use and exercise the power graunted me as Archbusshoppe and Primate of this realme.’Footnote ⁸⁰ As if to emphasise the point, Pole's register contains a magnificent coloured coat of arms, which contains a representation of the pallium.Footnote ⁸¹

What is to be made of Pole's sermon? It should first be noted that Pole himself never published nor disseminated the text. This in itself was a lost opportunity.Footnote ⁸² Pole's Lambeth register, compiled under the archbishop's supervision, was in no doubt about the importance of what the cardinal had done. This document records that the archbishop gave a ‘wholesome and excellent sermon’ (‘concionem quondam salutarem et luculentam’),Footnote ⁸³ which amongst other things talked of the significance of the pallium and the material from which it was made. Pole emphasised in his sermon that the garment was the outward sign of his authority as archbishop, and that it represented the unity of the Church. Exceeding medieval interpretations, Pole then drew apocalyptic comparisons between the use of the pallium and the book of Revelation. The pallium now signified the very fountain whereof all that is precious or to be esteemed either in heaven or earth is derived, which is ‘the Lambe that bare the crosse’. Pole received the pallium on 25 March; his predecessor Thomas Cranmer had been burned at the stake in Oxford four days earlier. Pole was clearly determined to repudiate any earlier Tudor understanding of the use of this symbol following England's break with Rome.

There is little doubt that what Pole had done in speaking about the significance of the pallium disturbed his Elizabethan successor Matthew Parker. This can be seen in the pages of Parker's De antiquitate Britannicae ecclesiae,Footnote ⁸⁴ where he reported that once the pallium had been placed on Pole's shoulders, the latter climbed into the pulpit and delivered a ‘feeble and insignificant sermon’ (‘exilem et ieiunam orationem’), so much so that Pole revealed himself to be ignorant of theology and decrepit in terms of his ability to preach. It was a biting rejection of Pole's activity, and reveals the hostility with which the Elizabethan Church now viewed the pallium. After Pole's actions, it was no longer possible for the Henrician reinterpretation of the significance of that garment to be credible. The Elizabethan Church, in fact, did not try to revert to the Henrician understanding of the pallium. The records of Parker's appointment as archbishop make no reference to its use. Instead, it appears simply as an intriguing armorial detail on his coat of arms.Footnote ⁸⁵ The same is true of Edmund Grindal's archiepiscopate,Footnote ⁸⁶ but evidence in Whitgift's Canterbury register for such armorial representation is lacking. Similarly, after the archiepiscopate of Nicholas Heath (1555–9), the York registers offer no evidence for the use of the pallium in that archdiocese; nor do the records for the appointment of Elizabethan archbishops of York in the Canterbury registers.Footnote ⁸⁷

The study of the use of the pallium from 1533 to 1603 is an interesting case study of an English Church in transition from Roman jurisdiction to its existence as a separate Church, independent of the Holy See. When Cranmer was appointed to Canterbury in 1533, the crown wished to appoint an archbishop outwardly in communion with Rome in order that he might then try the king's marital cause against Catherine of Aragon. Cranmer received the pallium, but issued a general protestation by which he renounced papal authority. Later in Henry's reign, surviving records show that the pallium was used, significantly, in the appointment of Browne to Dublin in 1536 and Holgate to York in 1545. The continued use of this medieval symbol was no accident, nor was it a sign of the Tudor Church clinging innocently to the past. Rather, Henry and his government reinterpreted the use of the pallium to infuse it with new meaning. While existing evidence is rather sparse, it is possible that the understanding of the use of this garment developed in the Henrician Church from 1536 and reached its climax in 1545 with Holgate's appointment to York. In the records of Holgate's promotion, there is of course no mention of papal jurisdiction. Although Holgate swore an oath of loyalty to the king, there is no longer a direct link between the receipt of an oath of loyalty and the receipt of the pallium. The records show that this woollen garment was now to be seen as a sign of archiepiscopal authority, bestowed in honour of Henry viii; and it was the king alone on earth who could appoint archbishops and bestow jurisdiction upon them.

With the accession of Mary, the significance of the use of the pallium in the English Church changed again. This garment, now papal once more, was certainly used in the appointment of Heath to York in 1555, but there is little real evidence to show how its use was understood. With the nomination of Reginald Pole to Canterbury, however, there is more that can be said. As Matthew Parker himself noted in his De antiquitate, the forms used in Pole's appointment are almost identical to those found at the appointment of Henry Deane as archbishop of Canterbury (1501–3).Footnote ⁸⁸ Pole's receipt of the pallium was once again linked to the swearing of an oath of loyalty to the pope. In the sermon which Pole preached, his first sermon in English, the new archbishop went beyond medieval understanding of the significance of this symbol and, in apocalyptic terms, linked it to Christ as the Lamb who died on the cross.

Pole's register speaks of his sermon as being wholesome and excellent. This was not the view taken by Matthew Parker, who described it as insignificant. On surviving evidence, it was Pole's treatment of the role and importance of the pallium which led the Elizabethan Church to drop its use in the appointment of archbishop metropolitans. When Parker was appointed to Canterbury, the pallium played no part in the formalities. The Elizabethan Church had to recognise the complexities inherent in this situation. Pole's treatment of the pallium had tainted the use of its symbolism thereinafter. None the less, this woollen garment continued to be represented in coats of arms – as if subtly to emphasise the continuity of the English Church that stretched back behind the sixteenth-century Reformation. Here was the complexity – denying the ceremony but retaining the arms.

This discussion of the use of the pallium in the Tudor Church can be said to act as a case study for a Church in transition. The seesaw of ecclesiastical polity saw an English Church in communion with Rome give way to Henrician norms of government, proceed to a Protestant Church under Edward vi, revert back to Catholicism under Mary, only to topple into a Protestant direction once again under Elizabeth. During this period, that Church had to identify how these changes in direction were translated into concrete forms and norms. Under Henry, the route chosen was reinterpretation of a traditional symbol like the pallium, to align it with a Henrician understanding of the nature of the Church. Mary's accession saw this understanding jettisoned in favour of a more traditional understanding – one that was embellished by Pole's own interpretation of the role and significance of this woollen garment. On the accession of Elizabeth, a reversion to the understanding of the role of the pallium developed in the later part of Henry's reign was no longer possible. The Elizabethan Church chose another route – one of rejection. The pallium remained, but as an intriguing symbol, as if subtly underlining the antiquity of the Church in England. The history of the pallium between 1533 and 1603 is an object lesson in the practical difficulties that the English Church would face on its journey from Roman obedience to Protestant settlement.