When did England stop being a Papal fief?












16















In 1213, King John surrendered England to the papacy making it a Papal fief where the Pope would be paid annual tribute. However King Edward I did not act as a vassal to the Pope because he got into conflict with Pope Boniface VIII when he taxed the clergy and defied the Pope’s orders to end the war in Scotland.



Did England formally stop being a Papal fief by that time?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

    – MAGolding
    May 4 at 20:22






  • 2





    What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:41








  • 2





    @Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

    – Ben Voigt
    May 4 at 20:42






  • 7





    Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:55






  • 1





    Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

    – Henry
    May 5 at 12:28
















16















In 1213, King John surrendered England to the papacy making it a Papal fief where the Pope would be paid annual tribute. However King Edward I did not act as a vassal to the Pope because he got into conflict with Pope Boniface VIII when he taxed the clergy and defied the Pope’s orders to end the war in Scotland.



Did England formally stop being a Papal fief by that time?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

    – MAGolding
    May 4 at 20:22






  • 2





    What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:41








  • 2





    @Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

    – Ben Voigt
    May 4 at 20:42






  • 7





    Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:55






  • 1





    Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

    – Henry
    May 5 at 12:28














16












16








16


1






In 1213, King John surrendered England to the papacy making it a Papal fief where the Pope would be paid annual tribute. However King Edward I did not act as a vassal to the Pope because he got into conflict with Pope Boniface VIII when he taxed the clergy and defied the Pope’s orders to end the war in Scotland.



Did England formally stop being a Papal fief by that time?










share|improve this question
















In 1213, King John surrendered England to the papacy making it a Papal fief where the Pope would be paid annual tribute. However King Edward I did not act as a vassal to the Pope because he got into conflict with Pope Boniface VIII when he taxed the clergy and defied the Pope’s orders to end the war in Scotland.



Did England formally stop being a Papal fief by that time?







england catholic-church feudalism papacy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 4 at 17:15









sempaiscuba

59.2k8209274




59.2k8209274










asked May 4 at 14:58









Jacob HarrisonJacob Harrison

263110




263110








  • 1





    Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

    – MAGolding
    May 4 at 20:22






  • 2





    What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:41








  • 2





    @Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

    – Ben Voigt
    May 4 at 20:42






  • 7





    Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:55






  • 1





    Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

    – Henry
    May 5 at 12:28














  • 1





    Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

    – MAGolding
    May 4 at 20:22






  • 2





    What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:41








  • 2





    @Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

    – Ben Voigt
    May 4 at 20:42






  • 7





    Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

    – Jacob Harrison
    May 4 at 20:55






  • 1





    Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

    – Henry
    May 5 at 12:28








1




1





Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

– MAGolding
May 4 at 20:22





Some source say that King Richard I had to agree to become a vassal of the Emperor before being released in 1194.

– MAGolding
May 4 at 20:22




2




2





What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

– Jacob Harrison
May 4 at 20:41







What is the source that says that? I thought that Richard I was released because a ransom was paid.

– Jacob Harrison
May 4 at 20:41






2




2





@Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

– Ben Voigt
May 4 at 20:42





@Jacob: Is an agreement to pay annual tribute distinguishable from a ransom?

– Ben Voigt
May 4 at 20:42




7




7





Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

– Jacob Harrison
May 4 at 20:55





Yes, because a ransom is a one time payment

– Jacob Harrison
May 4 at 20:55




1




1





Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

– Henry
May 5 at 12:28





Also worth being aware of the Statute of Praemunire of 1392 which suggested there might have been an issue, or at least Papal claims, before then

– Henry
May 5 at 12:28










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















15














SHORT ANSWER



From the point of view of the English king and parliament, England stopped being a Papal fief in 1365.




In 1365 parliament debated the latest papal request and concluded that
John’s original surrender of the realm had been invalid since it had
lacked the assent of the bishops. This marked the formal end to
English recognition of the pope’s sovereignty.




As early as 1245, during the papacy of Innocent IV, Henry III protested (to no avail) the annual 1,000 marks which the Papal fief entailed, and there was at least some delay in payment. Also, towards the end of his reign, Edward I consistently did not pay, and nor did Edward II (despite promising to). Edward III made only a token payment and refused to acknowledge all outstanding payments.**



The papacy, on the other hand,




has never formally resigned its claim to tribute, census or overlordship.




The author of the article cited here, Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia, adds:




two further facts need to be borne in mind. Since Anglo-Saxon times, a
levy known as Peter’s Pence had been paid by England to Rome,
described as ‘census’ and implying subjection to the papacy, albeit
collected from the English church rather than from the king.



This ‘census’ was still being paid as late as 1534, on the very eve of
Henry VIII’s final breach with Rome. Secondly, before John’s actions
of 1213, there were rumours, in England as well as Rome, suggesting
that John’s father, King Henry II, had already acknowledged the pope
not merely as his spiritual ruler but also as his feudal overlord.






DETAILS



The beginning: King John



The tribute which King John agreed to was 1000 marks, of which 700 was for England (which included Wales) and 300 for Ireland. In addition to this annual tribute and Peter's Pence, the Pope was also collecting




incidental levies made for different purposes, which from time to time
called for an extraordinary demand for money, and which could not be
covered by Peter's pence. Tallages for crusades, tithes, feudal fines,
and subsidies fall in this group.




Source: Margaret Katherine Theilen, 'Opposition to Papal Taxation in England under Innocent IV' (Master's thesis, 1913)





First objections: King Henry III



Thus, unsurprisingly, 1365 was not the first time King and Parliament raised objections to the annual tribute. In the lead up to the First Council of Lyons in 1245 held by Pope Innocent IV, Henry III prepared a letter




setting forth an account of the "execrable extortions" of the pope and
his legates and clerks.



the English were especially desirous of bringing up, was the abolition
of the yearly tribute with which their kingdom had been burdened since
1213. A parliament was held in London respecting the action to be taken concerning it. They claimed that the general community of
England had never consented to the cess, and begged to be relieved
from the payment of the thousand marks a year.




Source: Theilen



The pope waved aside English objections. Theilen, citing the chroniclers Matthew Paris and Thomas Walshingham, says of the Pope's actions:




Near the close of the council, he informed the English
representatives, that they would not obtain their demands. The agents
departed in anger, vowing with "terrible oaths" that they would never
pay the tribute or allow revenues to be extorted from their realm.
Innocent patiently bided his time. Just before they departed for home,
he summoned them before him, and forced each one of them to affix
his seal to "that detestable charter of tribute to which King John, of
unhappy memory," had agreed. The bishops who were become "inexcusably
effeminate thru fear" did what he bade them "to the enormous prejudice
of king and kingdom."




Thus, Henry III, despite his anger, continued to pay the tribute:




Both in 1246, and the two succeeding years, Innocent urged Henry to
pay the yearly cess. In 1249 we find that only five hundred marks
remain unpaid, showing that the feudal obligation of England was duly
recognized.






Lessening of payments: Kings Edward I & II



Edward I (1272-1307) paid at least some of the tribute until the late 1290s - he had good relations with Pope Gregory X (1271-76) who was a personal friend and, being the foremost European warrior king of his time, was the 'great hope' of the Popes to lead another crusade to the Holy Land. Payments stopped around 1297; his son and successor Edward II duly acknowledge as much:




In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the annual feudal tribute of 1000
marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agent undertook
solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by installments. This
promise was never fulfilled.






Final refusal: King Edward III



His son and successor, Edward III, was only marginally less tardy in making payments. Although he did pay 1,000 pounds in 1333 (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia says the last payment was in 1343), the English kings were clearly loosening their ties to Rome:




From the time he governed Edward had steadily refused to pay tribute
to the Pope or acknowledge him as his overlord. So Urban V sent in the
reckoning : One Thousand Marks Annual Tribute with Thirty three Years
of Arrears at Compound Interest.



...if his vassal, the King of England, ... did not honour his bond by a prompt
settlement in full, Edward would be cited to appear in person before
his overlord at Avignon. The Pope being resident in French territory
made his demand peculiarly exasperating to English pride.




Unsurprisingly, coming in the midst of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, this papal demand did not go down well. In fact, demand for payment resulted in Peter's Pence not being paid 'for a while':




This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the
papal suzerainty renounced. For a while even the payment of
Peter's pence was discontinued. It was possibly on this occasion, but more probably in 1374, that Wycliffe was employed by the King to write an answer rebutting the
papal claim. The papal power over the English Church was clearly being
loosened.




Source: M. W. Patterson, 'A History of the Church of England'(download PDF)






share|improve this answer

































    19














    tl; dr



    No, Edward III paid a token tribute of £1,000 in 1333 (in expectation of receiving papal favours in return).



    In 1365, the English parliament debated the latest papal demand for tribute. They concluded that John’s original surrender of the realm to the Pope had been invalid, since it had lacked the assent of the bishops. From the perspective of the English, that meant that England had never actually been a Papal fief in the first place.



    Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





    Background



    When King John surrendered England to the Papacy in 1213, he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (1 mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence). This tribute was never paid regularly, although it was paid from time-to-time into the fourteenth century.




    "... of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances ..."



    "... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter's pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities."






    • Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope made by King John before Pandulf, the Papal legate at Dover on 15 May 1213, and renewed at London, before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, on 3 October 1213


    Note that this explicitly excluded the payment of Peter's Pence.





    In return, the Pope issued a Papal bull placing England under his protection.



    It was on the grounds that England was a Papal fief that Pope Innocent III issued a Papal bull on 24 August 1215 declaring Magna Carta to be null-and-void. The reasoning was that the charter would have violated his rights as feudal lord.





    King John's son, Henry III, enjoyed close relations with the papacy throughout his reign, with Papal legates at his court (like Pandulf Verraccio) having right of veto on many matters.



    However, as you note, John's grandson, King Edward I, and great-grandson, King Edward II, did not enjoy such cordial relations with the Pope. As you say, in part this was about the king's right to tax the English church, and also over their continuing wars in Scotland. However, matters were certainly not helped by the Pope's perceived (and perhaps unsurprising, given the Papal exile in Avignon) partisan support for the kings of France in dealings between the two kingdoms.





    Payment of Tribute



    It seems that tribute was paid (at least intermittently) during the reign of Henry III.



    However, as a result of the increasing distance between the English kings and the Papacy during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, payment became less frequent, and no tribute at all was paid between 1300 and 1330.



    Edward III paid tribute of £1000 in 1333, and that is the last payment for which have a record (although we do have copies of demands for payment from the Pope).



    The parliamentary debate in 1365 was prompted by a Papal demand for the arrears of tribute that remained unpaid. As the Rev. M.W. Patterson put it in his 1929 History of the Church of England:




    In the year 1365 the Pope was injudicious enough to demand the arrears of the tribute promised by King John for himself and his successors. This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the papal suzerainty renounced.





    • p156


    Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





    Rejection by Parliament



    As I understand the argument, Parliament acknowledged that King John was free to surrender the kingship (i.e. abdicate), but he could not change the succession, and so 'bring his realm under the subjection of another', without the approval of the barons and the bishops (the Councils that were the precursors of Parliament). They also noted that John had surrendered the kingship under duress.



    While the Pope may have been head of the church, he had no formal position in the Councils of England. Since John didn't have the approval of the bishops, when he surrendered the kingship, Parliament effectively asserted that his infant son (Henry III) had automatically become king, and not the Pope.



    The following extract from Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England describes how Edward III put the Pope's demand to Parliament, and records their response:




    ... After which both houses proceeded to nominate receivers and tryers of petitions as usual, and adjourned to the next day, when the chan. in the presence of the king, lords, and commons, spoke again and told them, "that he had the day before informed them in general, of the occasion of their meeting, and that now they should know it more particularly; the king having a matter of great importance to communicate to them. His maj. had lately received notice, that the pope, in consideration of the homage which John k. of England, had formerly paid to the see of Rome, and of the tribute by him granted to the said see, intended by process to cite his maj. to appear at his court, at Avignon, to answer for his defaults, in not performing what the said king, his predecessor, had so undertaken for him and his heirs, kings of England. Whereupon, the king required the advice of his parl, what course he had best take if any such process should come out against him." The bps. lords and commons, desired until the following day, to give in their answer; when, being again assembled, after full deliberation, they declared as follows, “that neither king John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm and people, under such subjection, without their assent; and if it was done, it was without consent of parl, and contrary to his coronation oath; that he was notoriously compelled to it by the necessity of his affairs and the inquity [sic] of the times; wherefore the said estates enacted, that in case the pope should attempt any thing by process, or any other way, to constrain the king and his subjects, to perform what he says he lays claim to, in this respect, they would resist and withstand him to the utmost of their power.”



    This parl, continued to sit till the 11th of May ...





    • Cobbett, William: COBBETT's Parliamentary History of England, Vol 1 (my emphasis)




    Payment of Peter's Pence was also suspended for a time under Edward III in the 1520s. Wikipedia notes that:




    In 1366 and for some years after, it was refused on the grounds of the pope's obstinacy.




    Payment would also be withheld by later kings as a means of applying pressure to the Pope. However, apart from these interruptions, Peter's Pence continued to be paid by the English Church until it was abolished altogether by the Reformation Parliament in 1534.





    Further sources




    • Ann Deeley: Papal provision and royal rights of patronage in the early fourteenth century, English Historical Review, 1928

    • C. Warren Hollister: King John and the Historians, Journal of British Studies Vol 1, No 1, (Nov 1961), pp. 1-19

    • Thomas B. Lenihan: “The English Church Shall be Free”: Roots of the Reformation from William I to Henry VIII, MA thesis, 2011

    • Thomas W. Smith: 'The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe', History Compass, 13 (2015): pp 110-121

    • Benedict Wiedemann: Papal Overlordship and Protectio of the King, c.1000-1300, PhD thesis, 2017






    share|improve this answer


























    • Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

      – Frank from Frankfurt
      May 5 at 13:21











    • @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

      – sempaiscuba
      May 5 at 13:55











    • @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

      – Jacob Harrison
      May 9 at 19:14













    • @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

      – sempaiscuba
      May 10 at 0:41











    • @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

      – Jacob Harrison
      May 10 at 15:57














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "324"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52461%2fwhen-did-england-stop-being-a-papal-fief%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    15














    SHORT ANSWER



    From the point of view of the English king and parliament, England stopped being a Papal fief in 1365.




    In 1365 parliament debated the latest papal request and concluded that
    John’s original surrender of the realm had been invalid since it had
    lacked the assent of the bishops. This marked the formal end to
    English recognition of the pope’s sovereignty.




    As early as 1245, during the papacy of Innocent IV, Henry III protested (to no avail) the annual 1,000 marks which the Papal fief entailed, and there was at least some delay in payment. Also, towards the end of his reign, Edward I consistently did not pay, and nor did Edward II (despite promising to). Edward III made only a token payment and refused to acknowledge all outstanding payments.**



    The papacy, on the other hand,




    has never formally resigned its claim to tribute, census or overlordship.




    The author of the article cited here, Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia, adds:




    two further facts need to be borne in mind. Since Anglo-Saxon times, a
    levy known as Peter’s Pence had been paid by England to Rome,
    described as ‘census’ and implying subjection to the papacy, albeit
    collected from the English church rather than from the king.



    This ‘census’ was still being paid as late as 1534, on the very eve of
    Henry VIII’s final breach with Rome. Secondly, before John’s actions
    of 1213, there were rumours, in England as well as Rome, suggesting
    that John’s father, King Henry II, had already acknowledged the pope
    not merely as his spiritual ruler but also as his feudal overlord.






    DETAILS



    The beginning: King John



    The tribute which King John agreed to was 1000 marks, of which 700 was for England (which included Wales) and 300 for Ireland. In addition to this annual tribute and Peter's Pence, the Pope was also collecting




    incidental levies made for different purposes, which from time to time
    called for an extraordinary demand for money, and which could not be
    covered by Peter's pence. Tallages for crusades, tithes, feudal fines,
    and subsidies fall in this group.




    Source: Margaret Katherine Theilen, 'Opposition to Papal Taxation in England under Innocent IV' (Master's thesis, 1913)





    First objections: King Henry III



    Thus, unsurprisingly, 1365 was not the first time King and Parliament raised objections to the annual tribute. In the lead up to the First Council of Lyons in 1245 held by Pope Innocent IV, Henry III prepared a letter




    setting forth an account of the "execrable extortions" of the pope and
    his legates and clerks.



    the English were especially desirous of bringing up, was the abolition
    of the yearly tribute with which their kingdom had been burdened since
    1213. A parliament was held in London respecting the action to be taken concerning it. They claimed that the general community of
    England had never consented to the cess, and begged to be relieved
    from the payment of the thousand marks a year.




    Source: Theilen



    The pope waved aside English objections. Theilen, citing the chroniclers Matthew Paris and Thomas Walshingham, says of the Pope's actions:




    Near the close of the council, he informed the English
    representatives, that they would not obtain their demands. The agents
    departed in anger, vowing with "terrible oaths" that they would never
    pay the tribute or allow revenues to be extorted from their realm.
    Innocent patiently bided his time. Just before they departed for home,
    he summoned them before him, and forced each one of them to affix
    his seal to "that detestable charter of tribute to which King John, of
    unhappy memory," had agreed. The bishops who were become "inexcusably
    effeminate thru fear" did what he bade them "to the enormous prejudice
    of king and kingdom."




    Thus, Henry III, despite his anger, continued to pay the tribute:




    Both in 1246, and the two succeeding years, Innocent urged Henry to
    pay the yearly cess. In 1249 we find that only five hundred marks
    remain unpaid, showing that the feudal obligation of England was duly
    recognized.






    Lessening of payments: Kings Edward I & II



    Edward I (1272-1307) paid at least some of the tribute until the late 1290s - he had good relations with Pope Gregory X (1271-76) who was a personal friend and, being the foremost European warrior king of his time, was the 'great hope' of the Popes to lead another crusade to the Holy Land. Payments stopped around 1297; his son and successor Edward II duly acknowledge as much:




    In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the annual feudal tribute of 1000
    marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agent undertook
    solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by installments. This
    promise was never fulfilled.






    Final refusal: King Edward III



    His son and successor, Edward III, was only marginally less tardy in making payments. Although he did pay 1,000 pounds in 1333 (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia says the last payment was in 1343), the English kings were clearly loosening their ties to Rome:




    From the time he governed Edward had steadily refused to pay tribute
    to the Pope or acknowledge him as his overlord. So Urban V sent in the
    reckoning : One Thousand Marks Annual Tribute with Thirty three Years
    of Arrears at Compound Interest.



    ...if his vassal, the King of England, ... did not honour his bond by a prompt
    settlement in full, Edward would be cited to appear in person before
    his overlord at Avignon. The Pope being resident in French territory
    made his demand peculiarly exasperating to English pride.




    Unsurprisingly, coming in the midst of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, this papal demand did not go down well. In fact, demand for payment resulted in Peter's Pence not being paid 'for a while':




    This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the
    papal suzerainty renounced. For a while even the payment of
    Peter's pence was discontinued. It was possibly on this occasion, but more probably in 1374, that Wycliffe was employed by the King to write an answer rebutting the
    papal claim. The papal power over the English Church was clearly being
    loosened.




    Source: M. W. Patterson, 'A History of the Church of England'(download PDF)






    share|improve this answer






























      15














      SHORT ANSWER



      From the point of view of the English king and parliament, England stopped being a Papal fief in 1365.




      In 1365 parliament debated the latest papal request and concluded that
      John’s original surrender of the realm had been invalid since it had
      lacked the assent of the bishops. This marked the formal end to
      English recognition of the pope’s sovereignty.




      As early as 1245, during the papacy of Innocent IV, Henry III protested (to no avail) the annual 1,000 marks which the Papal fief entailed, and there was at least some delay in payment. Also, towards the end of his reign, Edward I consistently did not pay, and nor did Edward II (despite promising to). Edward III made only a token payment and refused to acknowledge all outstanding payments.**



      The papacy, on the other hand,




      has never formally resigned its claim to tribute, census or overlordship.




      The author of the article cited here, Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia, adds:




      two further facts need to be borne in mind. Since Anglo-Saxon times, a
      levy known as Peter’s Pence had been paid by England to Rome,
      described as ‘census’ and implying subjection to the papacy, albeit
      collected from the English church rather than from the king.



      This ‘census’ was still being paid as late as 1534, on the very eve of
      Henry VIII’s final breach with Rome. Secondly, before John’s actions
      of 1213, there were rumours, in England as well as Rome, suggesting
      that John’s father, King Henry II, had already acknowledged the pope
      not merely as his spiritual ruler but also as his feudal overlord.






      DETAILS



      The beginning: King John



      The tribute which King John agreed to was 1000 marks, of which 700 was for England (which included Wales) and 300 for Ireland. In addition to this annual tribute and Peter's Pence, the Pope was also collecting




      incidental levies made for different purposes, which from time to time
      called for an extraordinary demand for money, and which could not be
      covered by Peter's pence. Tallages for crusades, tithes, feudal fines,
      and subsidies fall in this group.




      Source: Margaret Katherine Theilen, 'Opposition to Papal Taxation in England under Innocent IV' (Master's thesis, 1913)





      First objections: King Henry III



      Thus, unsurprisingly, 1365 was not the first time King and Parliament raised objections to the annual tribute. In the lead up to the First Council of Lyons in 1245 held by Pope Innocent IV, Henry III prepared a letter




      setting forth an account of the "execrable extortions" of the pope and
      his legates and clerks.



      the English were especially desirous of bringing up, was the abolition
      of the yearly tribute with which their kingdom had been burdened since
      1213. A parliament was held in London respecting the action to be taken concerning it. They claimed that the general community of
      England had never consented to the cess, and begged to be relieved
      from the payment of the thousand marks a year.




      Source: Theilen



      The pope waved aside English objections. Theilen, citing the chroniclers Matthew Paris and Thomas Walshingham, says of the Pope's actions:




      Near the close of the council, he informed the English
      representatives, that they would not obtain their demands. The agents
      departed in anger, vowing with "terrible oaths" that they would never
      pay the tribute or allow revenues to be extorted from their realm.
      Innocent patiently bided his time. Just before they departed for home,
      he summoned them before him, and forced each one of them to affix
      his seal to "that detestable charter of tribute to which King John, of
      unhappy memory," had agreed. The bishops who were become "inexcusably
      effeminate thru fear" did what he bade them "to the enormous prejudice
      of king and kingdom."




      Thus, Henry III, despite his anger, continued to pay the tribute:




      Both in 1246, and the two succeeding years, Innocent urged Henry to
      pay the yearly cess. In 1249 we find that only five hundred marks
      remain unpaid, showing that the feudal obligation of England was duly
      recognized.






      Lessening of payments: Kings Edward I & II



      Edward I (1272-1307) paid at least some of the tribute until the late 1290s - he had good relations with Pope Gregory X (1271-76) who was a personal friend and, being the foremost European warrior king of his time, was the 'great hope' of the Popes to lead another crusade to the Holy Land. Payments stopped around 1297; his son and successor Edward II duly acknowledge as much:




      In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the annual feudal tribute of 1000
      marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agent undertook
      solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by installments. This
      promise was never fulfilled.






      Final refusal: King Edward III



      His son and successor, Edward III, was only marginally less tardy in making payments. Although he did pay 1,000 pounds in 1333 (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia says the last payment was in 1343), the English kings were clearly loosening their ties to Rome:




      From the time he governed Edward had steadily refused to pay tribute
      to the Pope or acknowledge him as his overlord. So Urban V sent in the
      reckoning : One Thousand Marks Annual Tribute with Thirty three Years
      of Arrears at Compound Interest.



      ...if his vassal, the King of England, ... did not honour his bond by a prompt
      settlement in full, Edward would be cited to appear in person before
      his overlord at Avignon. The Pope being resident in French territory
      made his demand peculiarly exasperating to English pride.




      Unsurprisingly, coming in the midst of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, this papal demand did not go down well. In fact, demand for payment resulted in Peter's Pence not being paid 'for a while':




      This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the
      papal suzerainty renounced. For a while even the payment of
      Peter's pence was discontinued. It was possibly on this occasion, but more probably in 1374, that Wycliffe was employed by the King to write an answer rebutting the
      papal claim. The papal power over the English Church was clearly being
      loosened.




      Source: M. W. Patterson, 'A History of the Church of England'(download PDF)






      share|improve this answer




























        15












        15








        15







        SHORT ANSWER



        From the point of view of the English king and parliament, England stopped being a Papal fief in 1365.




        In 1365 parliament debated the latest papal request and concluded that
        John’s original surrender of the realm had been invalid since it had
        lacked the assent of the bishops. This marked the formal end to
        English recognition of the pope’s sovereignty.




        As early as 1245, during the papacy of Innocent IV, Henry III protested (to no avail) the annual 1,000 marks which the Papal fief entailed, and there was at least some delay in payment. Also, towards the end of his reign, Edward I consistently did not pay, and nor did Edward II (despite promising to). Edward III made only a token payment and refused to acknowledge all outstanding payments.**



        The papacy, on the other hand,




        has never formally resigned its claim to tribute, census or overlordship.




        The author of the article cited here, Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia, adds:




        two further facts need to be borne in mind. Since Anglo-Saxon times, a
        levy known as Peter’s Pence had been paid by England to Rome,
        described as ‘census’ and implying subjection to the papacy, albeit
        collected from the English church rather than from the king.



        This ‘census’ was still being paid as late as 1534, on the very eve of
        Henry VIII’s final breach with Rome. Secondly, before John’s actions
        of 1213, there were rumours, in England as well as Rome, suggesting
        that John’s father, King Henry II, had already acknowledged the pope
        not merely as his spiritual ruler but also as his feudal overlord.






        DETAILS



        The beginning: King John



        The tribute which King John agreed to was 1000 marks, of which 700 was for England (which included Wales) and 300 for Ireland. In addition to this annual tribute and Peter's Pence, the Pope was also collecting




        incidental levies made for different purposes, which from time to time
        called for an extraordinary demand for money, and which could not be
        covered by Peter's pence. Tallages for crusades, tithes, feudal fines,
        and subsidies fall in this group.




        Source: Margaret Katherine Theilen, 'Opposition to Papal Taxation in England under Innocent IV' (Master's thesis, 1913)





        First objections: King Henry III



        Thus, unsurprisingly, 1365 was not the first time King and Parliament raised objections to the annual tribute. In the lead up to the First Council of Lyons in 1245 held by Pope Innocent IV, Henry III prepared a letter




        setting forth an account of the "execrable extortions" of the pope and
        his legates and clerks.



        the English were especially desirous of bringing up, was the abolition
        of the yearly tribute with which their kingdom had been burdened since
        1213. A parliament was held in London respecting the action to be taken concerning it. They claimed that the general community of
        England had never consented to the cess, and begged to be relieved
        from the payment of the thousand marks a year.




        Source: Theilen



        The pope waved aside English objections. Theilen, citing the chroniclers Matthew Paris and Thomas Walshingham, says of the Pope's actions:




        Near the close of the council, he informed the English
        representatives, that they would not obtain their demands. The agents
        departed in anger, vowing with "terrible oaths" that they would never
        pay the tribute or allow revenues to be extorted from their realm.
        Innocent patiently bided his time. Just before they departed for home,
        he summoned them before him, and forced each one of them to affix
        his seal to "that detestable charter of tribute to which King John, of
        unhappy memory," had agreed. The bishops who were become "inexcusably
        effeminate thru fear" did what he bade them "to the enormous prejudice
        of king and kingdom."




        Thus, Henry III, despite his anger, continued to pay the tribute:




        Both in 1246, and the two succeeding years, Innocent urged Henry to
        pay the yearly cess. In 1249 we find that only five hundred marks
        remain unpaid, showing that the feudal obligation of England was duly
        recognized.






        Lessening of payments: Kings Edward I & II



        Edward I (1272-1307) paid at least some of the tribute until the late 1290s - he had good relations with Pope Gregory X (1271-76) who was a personal friend and, being the foremost European warrior king of his time, was the 'great hope' of the Popes to lead another crusade to the Holy Land. Payments stopped around 1297; his son and successor Edward II duly acknowledge as much:




        In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the annual feudal tribute of 1000
        marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agent undertook
        solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by installments. This
        promise was never fulfilled.






        Final refusal: King Edward III



        His son and successor, Edward III, was only marginally less tardy in making payments. Although he did pay 1,000 pounds in 1333 (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia says the last payment was in 1343), the English kings were clearly loosening their ties to Rome:




        From the time he governed Edward had steadily refused to pay tribute
        to the Pope or acknowledge him as his overlord. So Urban V sent in the
        reckoning : One Thousand Marks Annual Tribute with Thirty three Years
        of Arrears at Compound Interest.



        ...if his vassal, the King of England, ... did not honour his bond by a prompt
        settlement in full, Edward would be cited to appear in person before
        his overlord at Avignon. The Pope being resident in French territory
        made his demand peculiarly exasperating to English pride.




        Unsurprisingly, coming in the midst of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, this papal demand did not go down well. In fact, demand for payment resulted in Peter's Pence not being paid 'for a while':




        This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the
        papal suzerainty renounced. For a while even the payment of
        Peter's pence was discontinued. It was possibly on this occasion, but more probably in 1374, that Wycliffe was employed by the King to write an answer rebutting the
        papal claim. The papal power over the English Church was clearly being
        loosened.




        Source: M. W. Patterson, 'A History of the Church of England'(download PDF)






        share|improve this answer















        SHORT ANSWER



        From the point of view of the English king and parliament, England stopped being a Papal fief in 1365.




        In 1365 parliament debated the latest papal request and concluded that
        John’s original surrender of the realm had been invalid since it had
        lacked the assent of the bishops. This marked the formal end to
        English recognition of the pope’s sovereignty.




        As early as 1245, during the papacy of Innocent IV, Henry III protested (to no avail) the annual 1,000 marks which the Papal fief entailed, and there was at least some delay in payment. Also, towards the end of his reign, Edward I consistently did not pay, and nor did Edward II (despite promising to). Edward III made only a token payment and refused to acknowledge all outstanding payments.**



        The papacy, on the other hand,




        has never formally resigned its claim to tribute, census or overlordship.




        The author of the article cited here, Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia, adds:




        two further facts need to be borne in mind. Since Anglo-Saxon times, a
        levy known as Peter’s Pence had been paid by England to Rome,
        described as ‘census’ and implying subjection to the papacy, albeit
        collected from the English church rather than from the king.



        This ‘census’ was still being paid as late as 1534, on the very eve of
        Henry VIII’s final breach with Rome. Secondly, before John’s actions
        of 1213, there were rumours, in England as well as Rome, suggesting
        that John’s father, King Henry II, had already acknowledged the pope
        not merely as his spiritual ruler but also as his feudal overlord.






        DETAILS



        The beginning: King John



        The tribute which King John agreed to was 1000 marks, of which 700 was for England (which included Wales) and 300 for Ireland. In addition to this annual tribute and Peter's Pence, the Pope was also collecting




        incidental levies made for different purposes, which from time to time
        called for an extraordinary demand for money, and which could not be
        covered by Peter's pence. Tallages for crusades, tithes, feudal fines,
        and subsidies fall in this group.




        Source: Margaret Katherine Theilen, 'Opposition to Papal Taxation in England under Innocent IV' (Master's thesis, 1913)





        First objections: King Henry III



        Thus, unsurprisingly, 1365 was not the first time King and Parliament raised objections to the annual tribute. In the lead up to the First Council of Lyons in 1245 held by Pope Innocent IV, Henry III prepared a letter




        setting forth an account of the "execrable extortions" of the pope and
        his legates and clerks.



        the English were especially desirous of bringing up, was the abolition
        of the yearly tribute with which their kingdom had been burdened since
        1213. A parliament was held in London respecting the action to be taken concerning it. They claimed that the general community of
        England had never consented to the cess, and begged to be relieved
        from the payment of the thousand marks a year.




        Source: Theilen



        The pope waved aside English objections. Theilen, citing the chroniclers Matthew Paris and Thomas Walshingham, says of the Pope's actions:




        Near the close of the council, he informed the English
        representatives, that they would not obtain their demands. The agents
        departed in anger, vowing with "terrible oaths" that they would never
        pay the tribute or allow revenues to be extorted from their realm.
        Innocent patiently bided his time. Just before they departed for home,
        he summoned them before him, and forced each one of them to affix
        his seal to "that detestable charter of tribute to which King John, of
        unhappy memory," had agreed. The bishops who were become "inexcusably
        effeminate thru fear" did what he bade them "to the enormous prejudice
        of king and kingdom."




        Thus, Henry III, despite his anger, continued to pay the tribute:




        Both in 1246, and the two succeeding years, Innocent urged Henry to
        pay the yearly cess. In 1249 we find that only five hundred marks
        remain unpaid, showing that the feudal obligation of England was duly
        recognized.






        Lessening of payments: Kings Edward I & II



        Edward I (1272-1307) paid at least some of the tribute until the late 1290s - he had good relations with Pope Gregory X (1271-76) who was a personal friend and, being the foremost European warrior king of his time, was the 'great hope' of the Popes to lead another crusade to the Holy Land. Payments stopped around 1297; his son and successor Edward II duly acknowledge as much:




        In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the annual feudal tribute of 1000
        marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agent undertook
        solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by installments. This
        promise was never fulfilled.






        Final refusal: King Edward III



        His son and successor, Edward III, was only marginally less tardy in making payments. Although he did pay 1,000 pounds in 1333 (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia says the last payment was in 1343), the English kings were clearly loosening their ties to Rome:




        From the time he governed Edward had steadily refused to pay tribute
        to the Pope or acknowledge him as his overlord. So Urban V sent in the
        reckoning : One Thousand Marks Annual Tribute with Thirty three Years
        of Arrears at Compound Interest.



        ...if his vassal, the King of England, ... did not honour his bond by a prompt
        settlement in full, Edward would be cited to appear in person before
        his overlord at Avignon. The Pope being resident in French territory
        made his demand peculiarly exasperating to English pride.




        Unsurprisingly, coming in the midst of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, this papal demand did not go down well. In fact, demand for payment resulted in Peter's Pence not being paid 'for a while':




        This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the
        papal suzerainty renounced. For a while even the payment of
        Peter's pence was discontinued. It was possibly on this occasion, but more probably in 1374, that Wycliffe was employed by the King to write an answer rebutting the
        papal claim. The papal power over the English Church was clearly being
        loosened.




        Source: M. W. Patterson, 'A History of the Church of England'(download PDF)







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited May 5 at 15:51

























        answered May 4 at 15:29









        Lars BosteenLars Bosteen

        47.4k10217295




        47.4k10217295























            19














            tl; dr



            No, Edward III paid a token tribute of £1,000 in 1333 (in expectation of receiving papal favours in return).



            In 1365, the English parliament debated the latest papal demand for tribute. They concluded that John’s original surrender of the realm to the Pope had been invalid, since it had lacked the assent of the bishops. From the perspective of the English, that meant that England had never actually been a Papal fief in the first place.



            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Background



            When King John surrendered England to the Papacy in 1213, he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (1 mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence). This tribute was never paid regularly, although it was paid from time-to-time into the fourteenth century.




            "... of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances ..."



            "... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter's pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities."






            • Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope made by King John before Pandulf, the Papal legate at Dover on 15 May 1213, and renewed at London, before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, on 3 October 1213


            Note that this explicitly excluded the payment of Peter's Pence.





            In return, the Pope issued a Papal bull placing England under his protection.



            It was on the grounds that England was a Papal fief that Pope Innocent III issued a Papal bull on 24 August 1215 declaring Magna Carta to be null-and-void. The reasoning was that the charter would have violated his rights as feudal lord.





            King John's son, Henry III, enjoyed close relations with the papacy throughout his reign, with Papal legates at his court (like Pandulf Verraccio) having right of veto on many matters.



            However, as you note, John's grandson, King Edward I, and great-grandson, King Edward II, did not enjoy such cordial relations with the Pope. As you say, in part this was about the king's right to tax the English church, and also over their continuing wars in Scotland. However, matters were certainly not helped by the Pope's perceived (and perhaps unsurprising, given the Papal exile in Avignon) partisan support for the kings of France in dealings between the two kingdoms.





            Payment of Tribute



            It seems that tribute was paid (at least intermittently) during the reign of Henry III.



            However, as a result of the increasing distance between the English kings and the Papacy during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, payment became less frequent, and no tribute at all was paid between 1300 and 1330.



            Edward III paid tribute of £1000 in 1333, and that is the last payment for which have a record (although we do have copies of demands for payment from the Pope).



            The parliamentary debate in 1365 was prompted by a Papal demand for the arrears of tribute that remained unpaid. As the Rev. M.W. Patterson put it in his 1929 History of the Church of England:




            In the year 1365 the Pope was injudicious enough to demand the arrears of the tribute promised by King John for himself and his successors. This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the papal suzerainty renounced.





            • p156


            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Rejection by Parliament



            As I understand the argument, Parliament acknowledged that King John was free to surrender the kingship (i.e. abdicate), but he could not change the succession, and so 'bring his realm under the subjection of another', without the approval of the barons and the bishops (the Councils that were the precursors of Parliament). They also noted that John had surrendered the kingship under duress.



            While the Pope may have been head of the church, he had no formal position in the Councils of England. Since John didn't have the approval of the bishops, when he surrendered the kingship, Parliament effectively asserted that his infant son (Henry III) had automatically become king, and not the Pope.



            The following extract from Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England describes how Edward III put the Pope's demand to Parliament, and records their response:




            ... After which both houses proceeded to nominate receivers and tryers of petitions as usual, and adjourned to the next day, when the chan. in the presence of the king, lords, and commons, spoke again and told them, "that he had the day before informed them in general, of the occasion of their meeting, and that now they should know it more particularly; the king having a matter of great importance to communicate to them. His maj. had lately received notice, that the pope, in consideration of the homage which John k. of England, had formerly paid to the see of Rome, and of the tribute by him granted to the said see, intended by process to cite his maj. to appear at his court, at Avignon, to answer for his defaults, in not performing what the said king, his predecessor, had so undertaken for him and his heirs, kings of England. Whereupon, the king required the advice of his parl, what course he had best take if any such process should come out against him." The bps. lords and commons, desired until the following day, to give in their answer; when, being again assembled, after full deliberation, they declared as follows, “that neither king John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm and people, under such subjection, without their assent; and if it was done, it was without consent of parl, and contrary to his coronation oath; that he was notoriously compelled to it by the necessity of his affairs and the inquity [sic] of the times; wherefore the said estates enacted, that in case the pope should attempt any thing by process, or any other way, to constrain the king and his subjects, to perform what he says he lays claim to, in this respect, they would resist and withstand him to the utmost of their power.”



            This parl, continued to sit till the 11th of May ...





            • Cobbett, William: COBBETT's Parliamentary History of England, Vol 1 (my emphasis)




            Payment of Peter's Pence was also suspended for a time under Edward III in the 1520s. Wikipedia notes that:




            In 1366 and for some years after, it was refused on the grounds of the pope's obstinacy.




            Payment would also be withheld by later kings as a means of applying pressure to the Pope. However, apart from these interruptions, Peter's Pence continued to be paid by the English Church until it was abolished altogether by the Reformation Parliament in 1534.





            Further sources




            • Ann Deeley: Papal provision and royal rights of patronage in the early fourteenth century, English Historical Review, 1928

            • C. Warren Hollister: King John and the Historians, Journal of British Studies Vol 1, No 1, (Nov 1961), pp. 1-19

            • Thomas B. Lenihan: “The English Church Shall be Free”: Roots of the Reformation from William I to Henry VIII, MA thesis, 2011

            • Thomas W. Smith: 'The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe', History Compass, 13 (2015): pp 110-121

            • Benedict Wiedemann: Papal Overlordship and Protectio of the King, c.1000-1300, PhD thesis, 2017






            share|improve this answer


























            • Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

              – Frank from Frankfurt
              May 5 at 13:21











            • @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 5 at 13:55











            • @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 9 at 19:14













            • @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 10 at 0:41











            • @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 10 at 15:57


















            19














            tl; dr



            No, Edward III paid a token tribute of £1,000 in 1333 (in expectation of receiving papal favours in return).



            In 1365, the English parliament debated the latest papal demand for tribute. They concluded that John’s original surrender of the realm to the Pope had been invalid, since it had lacked the assent of the bishops. From the perspective of the English, that meant that England had never actually been a Papal fief in the first place.



            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Background



            When King John surrendered England to the Papacy in 1213, he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (1 mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence). This tribute was never paid regularly, although it was paid from time-to-time into the fourteenth century.




            "... of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances ..."



            "... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter's pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities."






            • Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope made by King John before Pandulf, the Papal legate at Dover on 15 May 1213, and renewed at London, before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, on 3 October 1213


            Note that this explicitly excluded the payment of Peter's Pence.





            In return, the Pope issued a Papal bull placing England under his protection.



            It was on the grounds that England was a Papal fief that Pope Innocent III issued a Papal bull on 24 August 1215 declaring Magna Carta to be null-and-void. The reasoning was that the charter would have violated his rights as feudal lord.





            King John's son, Henry III, enjoyed close relations with the papacy throughout his reign, with Papal legates at his court (like Pandulf Verraccio) having right of veto on many matters.



            However, as you note, John's grandson, King Edward I, and great-grandson, King Edward II, did not enjoy such cordial relations with the Pope. As you say, in part this was about the king's right to tax the English church, and also over their continuing wars in Scotland. However, matters were certainly not helped by the Pope's perceived (and perhaps unsurprising, given the Papal exile in Avignon) partisan support for the kings of France in dealings between the two kingdoms.





            Payment of Tribute



            It seems that tribute was paid (at least intermittently) during the reign of Henry III.



            However, as a result of the increasing distance between the English kings and the Papacy during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, payment became less frequent, and no tribute at all was paid between 1300 and 1330.



            Edward III paid tribute of £1000 in 1333, and that is the last payment for which have a record (although we do have copies of demands for payment from the Pope).



            The parliamentary debate in 1365 was prompted by a Papal demand for the arrears of tribute that remained unpaid. As the Rev. M.W. Patterson put it in his 1929 History of the Church of England:




            In the year 1365 the Pope was injudicious enough to demand the arrears of the tribute promised by King John for himself and his successors. This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the papal suzerainty renounced.





            • p156


            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Rejection by Parliament



            As I understand the argument, Parliament acknowledged that King John was free to surrender the kingship (i.e. abdicate), but he could not change the succession, and so 'bring his realm under the subjection of another', without the approval of the barons and the bishops (the Councils that were the precursors of Parliament). They also noted that John had surrendered the kingship under duress.



            While the Pope may have been head of the church, he had no formal position in the Councils of England. Since John didn't have the approval of the bishops, when he surrendered the kingship, Parliament effectively asserted that his infant son (Henry III) had automatically become king, and not the Pope.



            The following extract from Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England describes how Edward III put the Pope's demand to Parliament, and records their response:




            ... After which both houses proceeded to nominate receivers and tryers of petitions as usual, and adjourned to the next day, when the chan. in the presence of the king, lords, and commons, spoke again and told them, "that he had the day before informed them in general, of the occasion of their meeting, and that now they should know it more particularly; the king having a matter of great importance to communicate to them. His maj. had lately received notice, that the pope, in consideration of the homage which John k. of England, had formerly paid to the see of Rome, and of the tribute by him granted to the said see, intended by process to cite his maj. to appear at his court, at Avignon, to answer for his defaults, in not performing what the said king, his predecessor, had so undertaken for him and his heirs, kings of England. Whereupon, the king required the advice of his parl, what course he had best take if any such process should come out against him." The bps. lords and commons, desired until the following day, to give in their answer; when, being again assembled, after full deliberation, they declared as follows, “that neither king John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm and people, under such subjection, without their assent; and if it was done, it was without consent of parl, and contrary to his coronation oath; that he was notoriously compelled to it by the necessity of his affairs and the inquity [sic] of the times; wherefore the said estates enacted, that in case the pope should attempt any thing by process, or any other way, to constrain the king and his subjects, to perform what he says he lays claim to, in this respect, they would resist and withstand him to the utmost of their power.”



            This parl, continued to sit till the 11th of May ...





            • Cobbett, William: COBBETT's Parliamentary History of England, Vol 1 (my emphasis)




            Payment of Peter's Pence was also suspended for a time under Edward III in the 1520s. Wikipedia notes that:




            In 1366 and for some years after, it was refused on the grounds of the pope's obstinacy.




            Payment would also be withheld by later kings as a means of applying pressure to the Pope. However, apart from these interruptions, Peter's Pence continued to be paid by the English Church until it was abolished altogether by the Reformation Parliament in 1534.





            Further sources




            • Ann Deeley: Papal provision and royal rights of patronage in the early fourteenth century, English Historical Review, 1928

            • C. Warren Hollister: King John and the Historians, Journal of British Studies Vol 1, No 1, (Nov 1961), pp. 1-19

            • Thomas B. Lenihan: “The English Church Shall be Free”: Roots of the Reformation from William I to Henry VIII, MA thesis, 2011

            • Thomas W. Smith: 'The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe', History Compass, 13 (2015): pp 110-121

            • Benedict Wiedemann: Papal Overlordship and Protectio of the King, c.1000-1300, PhD thesis, 2017






            share|improve this answer


























            • Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

              – Frank from Frankfurt
              May 5 at 13:21











            • @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 5 at 13:55











            • @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 9 at 19:14













            • @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 10 at 0:41











            • @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 10 at 15:57
















            19












            19








            19







            tl; dr



            No, Edward III paid a token tribute of £1,000 in 1333 (in expectation of receiving papal favours in return).



            In 1365, the English parliament debated the latest papal demand for tribute. They concluded that John’s original surrender of the realm to the Pope had been invalid, since it had lacked the assent of the bishops. From the perspective of the English, that meant that England had never actually been a Papal fief in the first place.



            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Background



            When King John surrendered England to the Papacy in 1213, he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (1 mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence). This tribute was never paid regularly, although it was paid from time-to-time into the fourteenth century.




            "... of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances ..."



            "... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter's pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities."






            • Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope made by King John before Pandulf, the Papal legate at Dover on 15 May 1213, and renewed at London, before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, on 3 October 1213


            Note that this explicitly excluded the payment of Peter's Pence.





            In return, the Pope issued a Papal bull placing England under his protection.



            It was on the grounds that England was a Papal fief that Pope Innocent III issued a Papal bull on 24 August 1215 declaring Magna Carta to be null-and-void. The reasoning was that the charter would have violated his rights as feudal lord.





            King John's son, Henry III, enjoyed close relations with the papacy throughout his reign, with Papal legates at his court (like Pandulf Verraccio) having right of veto on many matters.



            However, as you note, John's grandson, King Edward I, and great-grandson, King Edward II, did not enjoy such cordial relations with the Pope. As you say, in part this was about the king's right to tax the English church, and also over their continuing wars in Scotland. However, matters were certainly not helped by the Pope's perceived (and perhaps unsurprising, given the Papal exile in Avignon) partisan support for the kings of France in dealings between the two kingdoms.





            Payment of Tribute



            It seems that tribute was paid (at least intermittently) during the reign of Henry III.



            However, as a result of the increasing distance between the English kings and the Papacy during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, payment became less frequent, and no tribute at all was paid between 1300 and 1330.



            Edward III paid tribute of £1000 in 1333, and that is the last payment for which have a record (although we do have copies of demands for payment from the Pope).



            The parliamentary debate in 1365 was prompted by a Papal demand for the arrears of tribute that remained unpaid. As the Rev. M.W. Patterson put it in his 1929 History of the Church of England:




            In the year 1365 the Pope was injudicious enough to demand the arrears of the tribute promised by King John for himself and his successors. This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the papal suzerainty renounced.





            • p156


            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Rejection by Parliament



            As I understand the argument, Parliament acknowledged that King John was free to surrender the kingship (i.e. abdicate), but he could not change the succession, and so 'bring his realm under the subjection of another', without the approval of the barons and the bishops (the Councils that were the precursors of Parliament). They also noted that John had surrendered the kingship under duress.



            While the Pope may have been head of the church, he had no formal position in the Councils of England. Since John didn't have the approval of the bishops, when he surrendered the kingship, Parliament effectively asserted that his infant son (Henry III) had automatically become king, and not the Pope.



            The following extract from Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England describes how Edward III put the Pope's demand to Parliament, and records their response:




            ... After which both houses proceeded to nominate receivers and tryers of petitions as usual, and adjourned to the next day, when the chan. in the presence of the king, lords, and commons, spoke again and told them, "that he had the day before informed them in general, of the occasion of their meeting, and that now they should know it more particularly; the king having a matter of great importance to communicate to them. His maj. had lately received notice, that the pope, in consideration of the homage which John k. of England, had formerly paid to the see of Rome, and of the tribute by him granted to the said see, intended by process to cite his maj. to appear at his court, at Avignon, to answer for his defaults, in not performing what the said king, his predecessor, had so undertaken for him and his heirs, kings of England. Whereupon, the king required the advice of his parl, what course he had best take if any such process should come out against him." The bps. lords and commons, desired until the following day, to give in their answer; when, being again assembled, after full deliberation, they declared as follows, “that neither king John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm and people, under such subjection, without their assent; and if it was done, it was without consent of parl, and contrary to his coronation oath; that he was notoriously compelled to it by the necessity of his affairs and the inquity [sic] of the times; wherefore the said estates enacted, that in case the pope should attempt any thing by process, or any other way, to constrain the king and his subjects, to perform what he says he lays claim to, in this respect, they would resist and withstand him to the utmost of their power.”



            This parl, continued to sit till the 11th of May ...





            • Cobbett, William: COBBETT's Parliamentary History of England, Vol 1 (my emphasis)




            Payment of Peter's Pence was also suspended for a time under Edward III in the 1520s. Wikipedia notes that:




            In 1366 and for some years after, it was refused on the grounds of the pope's obstinacy.




            Payment would also be withheld by later kings as a means of applying pressure to the Pope. However, apart from these interruptions, Peter's Pence continued to be paid by the English Church until it was abolished altogether by the Reformation Parliament in 1534.





            Further sources




            • Ann Deeley: Papal provision and royal rights of patronage in the early fourteenth century, English Historical Review, 1928

            • C. Warren Hollister: King John and the Historians, Journal of British Studies Vol 1, No 1, (Nov 1961), pp. 1-19

            • Thomas B. Lenihan: “The English Church Shall be Free”: Roots of the Reformation from William I to Henry VIII, MA thesis, 2011

            • Thomas W. Smith: 'The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe', History Compass, 13 (2015): pp 110-121

            • Benedict Wiedemann: Papal Overlordship and Protectio of the King, c.1000-1300, PhD thesis, 2017






            share|improve this answer















            tl; dr



            No, Edward III paid a token tribute of £1,000 in 1333 (in expectation of receiving papal favours in return).



            In 1365, the English parliament debated the latest papal demand for tribute. They concluded that John’s original surrender of the realm to the Pope had been invalid, since it had lacked the assent of the bishops. From the perspective of the English, that meant that England had never actually been a Papal fief in the first place.



            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Background



            When King John surrendered England to the Papacy in 1213, he also agreed to pay an annual tribute to the pope of 1,000 marks (1 mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence). This tribute was never paid regularly, although it was paid from time-to-time into the fourteenth century.




            "... of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances ..."



            "... As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter's pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities."






            • Concession of the Kingdom to the Pope made by King John before Pandulf, the Papal legate at Dover on 15 May 1213, and renewed at London, before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, on 3 October 1213


            Note that this explicitly excluded the payment of Peter's Pence.





            In return, the Pope issued a Papal bull placing England under his protection.



            It was on the grounds that England was a Papal fief that Pope Innocent III issued a Papal bull on 24 August 1215 declaring Magna Carta to be null-and-void. The reasoning was that the charter would have violated his rights as feudal lord.





            King John's son, Henry III, enjoyed close relations with the papacy throughout his reign, with Papal legates at his court (like Pandulf Verraccio) having right of veto on many matters.



            However, as you note, John's grandson, King Edward I, and great-grandson, King Edward II, did not enjoy such cordial relations with the Pope. As you say, in part this was about the king's right to tax the English church, and also over their continuing wars in Scotland. However, matters were certainly not helped by the Pope's perceived (and perhaps unsurprising, given the Papal exile in Avignon) partisan support for the kings of France in dealings between the two kingdoms.





            Payment of Tribute



            It seems that tribute was paid (at least intermittently) during the reign of Henry III.



            However, as a result of the increasing distance between the English kings and the Papacy during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, payment became less frequent, and no tribute at all was paid between 1300 and 1330.



            Edward III paid tribute of £1000 in 1333, and that is the last payment for which have a record (although we do have copies of demands for payment from the Pope).



            The parliamentary debate in 1365 was prompted by a Papal demand for the arrears of tribute that remained unpaid. As the Rev. M.W. Patterson put it in his 1929 History of the Church of England:




            In the year 1365 the Pope was injudicious enough to demand the arrears of the tribute promised by King John for himself and his successors. This claim was emphatically rejected by Parliament, and the papal suzerainty renounced.





            • p156


            Since no English king paid tribute to the Pope as vassal after that date, 1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief.





            Rejection by Parliament



            As I understand the argument, Parliament acknowledged that King John was free to surrender the kingship (i.e. abdicate), but he could not change the succession, and so 'bring his realm under the subjection of another', without the approval of the barons and the bishops (the Councils that were the precursors of Parliament). They also noted that John had surrendered the kingship under duress.



            While the Pope may have been head of the church, he had no formal position in the Councils of England. Since John didn't have the approval of the bishops, when he surrendered the kingship, Parliament effectively asserted that his infant son (Henry III) had automatically become king, and not the Pope.



            The following extract from Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England describes how Edward III put the Pope's demand to Parliament, and records their response:




            ... After which both houses proceeded to nominate receivers and tryers of petitions as usual, and adjourned to the next day, when the chan. in the presence of the king, lords, and commons, spoke again and told them, "that he had the day before informed them in general, of the occasion of their meeting, and that now they should know it more particularly; the king having a matter of great importance to communicate to them. His maj. had lately received notice, that the pope, in consideration of the homage which John k. of England, had formerly paid to the see of Rome, and of the tribute by him granted to the said see, intended by process to cite his maj. to appear at his court, at Avignon, to answer for his defaults, in not performing what the said king, his predecessor, had so undertaken for him and his heirs, kings of England. Whereupon, the king required the advice of his parl, what course he had best take if any such process should come out against him." The bps. lords and commons, desired until the following day, to give in their answer; when, being again assembled, after full deliberation, they declared as follows, “that neither king John nor any other king could bring himself, his realm and people, under such subjection, without their assent; and if it was done, it was without consent of parl, and contrary to his coronation oath; that he was notoriously compelled to it by the necessity of his affairs and the inquity [sic] of the times; wherefore the said estates enacted, that in case the pope should attempt any thing by process, or any other way, to constrain the king and his subjects, to perform what he says he lays claim to, in this respect, they would resist and withstand him to the utmost of their power.”



            This parl, continued to sit till the 11th of May ...





            • Cobbett, William: COBBETT's Parliamentary History of England, Vol 1 (my emphasis)




            Payment of Peter's Pence was also suspended for a time under Edward III in the 1520s. Wikipedia notes that:




            In 1366 and for some years after, it was refused on the grounds of the pope's obstinacy.




            Payment would also be withheld by later kings as a means of applying pressure to the Pope. However, apart from these interruptions, Peter's Pence continued to be paid by the English Church until it was abolished altogether by the Reformation Parliament in 1534.





            Further sources




            • Ann Deeley: Papal provision and royal rights of patronage in the early fourteenth century, English Historical Review, 1928

            • C. Warren Hollister: King John and the Historians, Journal of British Studies Vol 1, No 1, (Nov 1961), pp. 1-19

            • Thomas B. Lenihan: “The English Church Shall be Free”: Roots of the Reformation from William I to Henry VIII, MA thesis, 2011

            • Thomas W. Smith: 'The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe', History Compass, 13 (2015): pp 110-121

            • Benedict Wiedemann: Papal Overlordship and Protectio of the King, c.1000-1300, PhD thesis, 2017







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited May 10 at 0:40

























            answered May 4 at 15:30









            sempaiscubasempaiscuba

            59.2k8209274




            59.2k8209274













            • Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

              – Frank from Frankfurt
              May 5 at 13:21











            • @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 5 at 13:55











            • @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 9 at 19:14













            • @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 10 at 0:41











            • @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 10 at 15:57





















            • Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

              – Frank from Frankfurt
              May 5 at 13:21











            • @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 5 at 13:55











            • @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 9 at 19:14













            • @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

              – sempaiscuba
              May 10 at 0:41











            • @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

              – Jacob Harrison
              May 10 at 15:57



















            Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

            – Frank from Frankfurt
            May 5 at 13:21





            Thanks. Still, your conclusion "1365 would seem to be the year that England ceased to be a Papal fief" may be factually right - but this doesn't appear to be legally sound: If you assume that the bishops' consent would have been necessary, England had never been a Papal fief in the first place, otherwise claiming incorrectly a formal defect wouldn't have meant an end to this status.

            – Frank from Frankfurt
            May 5 at 13:21













            @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

            – sempaiscuba
            May 5 at 13:55





            @FrankfromFrankfurt And to the best of my knowledge, the Papacy has never resigned its claim. A useful analogy might be the Treaty of Troyes. This stated that Henry V & his heirs would inherit the French crown upon the death of Charles VI of France. The Dauphin claimed the treaty was invalid, and went on to defeat the English (& their French supporters) to become Charles VII of France. Despite this, English monarchs continued to claim the French throne until the Act of Union in 1800.

            – sempaiscuba
            May 5 at 13:55













            @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

            – Jacob Harrison
            May 9 at 19:14







            @sempaiscuba I don’t understand the argument that consent of the bishops was necessary since the Popes both back then and today have supreme authority over the Catholic Church so why would he need bishops consent to accept a surrender of kingdom?

            – Jacob Harrison
            May 9 at 19:14















            @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

            – sempaiscuba
            May 10 at 0:41





            @JacobHarrison I've edited the info from my last comment into the answer, and included an additional reference for you.

            – sempaiscuba
            May 10 at 0:41













            @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

            – Jacob Harrison
            May 10 at 15:57







            @sempaiscuba When King John surrendered to the papacy, it was before the signing of Magna Carta which increased the power of the councils. Was it part of English law before the Magna Carta that the king couldn’t bring the realm under the subjection of another without consent from the councils? What part of the coronation oath did John violate?

            – Jacob Harrison
            May 10 at 15:57




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52461%2fwhen-did-england-stop-being-a-papal-fief%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

            What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029