Reginald Pole Cardinal, Archbishop, & almost Pope |
Cardinal Pole may have had royal blood flowing through his veins (his mother was Margaret Pole, daughter of George of Clarence), but he believed firmly in attending to whatever work God intended for him rather than seeking out his own glory. At a time when papal positions were lobbied and bribed for, he declined to actively seek the highest office. Instead, Reginald refused to campaign even as Inquisitors worked to blacken his name and factions within Rome took advantage of his inaction. Despite his lack of ambition, Pole missed being elected by only one vote.
Pope Paul III had been elected in 1534 to lead the Counter Reformation. His predecessor, Clement VII, had struggled to cope with his role as nations fell away at an increasing rate from Rome, a catastrophe that none before him had been forced to manage. Clement was indecisive and ineffective, as evinced by the sacking of Rome during his tenure. Before Clement, Adrian VI, had hoped to reconcile with Martin Luther and his followers, but by the time Paul was elected it was deemed necessary to change tactics. Cardinal Pole believed strongly in discussion and reconciliation between reformists and Catholics, and it was this open-mindedness that led to charges of heresy against him.
However, in 1549, Pole was considered the natural choice to lead Rome. Bankers, who openly took wagers on the outcome of the sacred process, placed Pole’s chances of obtaining the papal tiara between 90-95%. When Pope Paul died on November 10, 1549, forty-nine cardinals attended the conclave, which lasted an arduous seventy-two days, to elect his successor. During this time, the cardinals resided in hastily built wooden cells that were set up in the Sistine Chapel and other halls of the Vatican.
Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Henry II of France were each determined to see their own man elected. Reginald Pole was the choice of neither. While not a first choice, Reginald was said to be acceptable to Charles V, who shared Pole’s interest in continuing discussions that could lead to compromise with German Lutherans. Accepted by Imperials and esteemed by his fellow cardinals, Pole’s chances seemed good. Alessandro Farnese, who would go on to participate in several more controversial papal conclaves, called for a public vote believing that a majority would select the highly respected Pole if votes were not secret.
Instead, a secret vote was held in the Pauline Chapel on December 3, 1549. When the first two votes brought Pole up just short of the number he needed, the Imperialists pressed to continue before additional French cardinals could arrive, but Pole refused to be a part of this. Confidence in him remained high enough that Papal vestments were tailored for him.
Giovanni del Monte Pope Julius III |
Although Pole seemed the clear choice to many, others saw flaws with the potential of his papacy for a variety of reasons. First, Reginald was not Italian. He was a close blood relation of England’s Tudors, and this was not seen by everyone as a strength. Second, he was young. At age forty-five, he had the potential for a very long reign indeed. Finally, there were some who believed the charges of heresy against him and were afraid they would be electing a reformer to Saint Peter’s chair.
After weeks of political intrigue, bribes, and negotiations, the conclave elected Giovanni del Monte on February 8, 1550. He was considered a compromise candidate and no one’s ideal choice. Sixty-three years old at the time of his election, Pope Julius III lived only five more years. By the time of del Monte’s death, Reginald Pole was serving in England where he became Queen Mary I’s Archbishop of Canterbury in 1556, two years before his death.
Fascinating! Political intrigue, cultural bias, and serious disagreements as to the "popeness" of the papal see! Thank you for posting!
ReplyDeleteThank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
DeleteFascinating! Political intrigue, cultural bias, and serious disagreements as to the "popeness" of the papal see! Thank you for posting!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteI wish he had left his post to marry mary. Mary sacrificed so,much and got nothing for it,
ReplyDeleteYES! I totally agree. Mary let herself be too led by Charles V. Reginald would have been a much better match than Philip.
DeleteI think a lot of Elizabeth's actions as queen were shaped by watching her sisters mistakes.
DeleteI completely agree.
DeleteI finished queen of martyrs. I could not really feel for Pole
ReplyDeleteNot that you didnt write well but I will always sympathize with Mary's victims and not with her.
Why would Mary have been considered merciful?
DeleteShe was considered merciful during her lifetime for pardoning soldiers of Wyatt's Rebellion, her sister, and those reformers that recanted. She also desired to pardon Lady Jane Grey, but continued rebellion in her name made that impossible. Mary was known for her generosity and was only widely regarded as cruel posthumously.
DeleteI understand the pro Mary viewpoint then. But if she had had her way England would have become an appendage of Spain. And I am sure history would have been very different then and,not in a good way.
DeleteI do not believe that Mary's plan was to join England to Spain. In fact, negotiations for her marriage stated just the opposite since that was obviously a concern.
DeleteWhat was her plan then? She should not have married Philip II then.
DeleteOther queens have married foreign princes and maintained the sovereignty of their own country. Mary's intent was to leave her kingdom to her own heir, and that is exactly what happened, even if it wasn't the child she had hoped for.
DeleteI probably shouldn't ask this but do you credit Elizabeth I with anything? Anything at all?
DeleteOr are you completely against her?
I'm not completely against anyone, but Elizabeth has enough champions without me being one of them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI will probably always be one of them.
ReplyDeleteAt least Elizabeth didnt kill an innocent baby like Mary did.
ReplyDeleteWhen did Mary kill an innocent baby? Mary is known for loving children and longing to have her own.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteShe had a pregnant woman burnt and the baby thrown back on the fire.
DeleteYou have brought this up multiple times, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The incident happened during Mary's reign, but she did not order it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete