Tudor Rebellions were a major source of unrest in Tudor times and were indicative of the volatility that defined the power balance of feudal society. Rebellions occurring from 1485-1608 could generally be seen as a means of calling grievances to the attention of authorities and pressurizing them to act. Furthermore, the cause of Tudor rebellions varied from rebellion to rebellion, however, there were trends in the causation of rebellions if the period is divided into the early Tudors, mid-Tudors and the later Tudors. In addition, it is useful to appreciate the multi-causal nature of rebellions, as they were often a mix of political and religious, as the Tudor period saw the reduction of the power of the church as an institution during the Reformation. Socio-economic rebellions were linked to financial and legal issues that affected the general public. The importance of the respective factors in causing rebellions can be explored by examining key rebellions under the themes of religious, socio-economic and political issues. Furthermore, politics played the most prominent role in the causation of rebellions at the start and end of the Tudor period due to the
Elements of historiography show the complex nature of causes of rebellions, with continuing debate over causes of rebellions as new evidence is found and research is carried out. Historians studying Tudor rebellions have varying stances on the main causes of rebellions and often emphasise a single cause more than others. John Guy, a post-revisionist, has revised the work of earlier scholars, including Elton, by challenging readings that foreground elite political history. Guy’s argument relating to rebellions may be poitical1, but acknowledges the subsidiary importance of socio-economic and religious causes. Post-revisionist John Guy has revised the works of earlier scholars such as G Elton who understood the Pilgrimage of Grace in terms of primarily political causation. Seeking to understand the grass-roots beyond England’s political elite, Guy exposes the importance of religious and socio-economic factors in the Pilgrimage of grace John Guy therefore illustrates rebellions as uprisings in which the common people played an active role, rather than them being a frivolous ‘many-headed monster’ (Hill, 1966), in the way that elite historical narratives often caricature them. Guy’s socio-economic arguments therefore give the common people a substantial voice, by disproving notions that rebellions were caused by misunderstanding.
Geoffrey Elton was a renowned historian with enormous prestige and influence. He was a former President of the Royal Historical Society as well as Reigus Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, influencing many scholars, including John Guy, who he taught. He is a traditionalist historian with a specialized focus on Tudor government when regarding rebellion, having written books such as The Tudor Revolution In Government, which argued that the government of Henry VIII laid the foundation of modern government, as we know it today . studied at Cambridge and advanced to a Clare college fellowship in 1954. One of Elton’s key justifications for his focus on ‘upper-class’ leadership was that rebellion was spread by ‘wild rumours and stories’2. Elton gives an elite viewpoint regarding rebellions. Yet his view may be limited by the fact that characteristically in early modern Europe, countrywide rumours are the stuff of mass politics, not of aristocratic intrigue.
In the mid-Tudor era, religion was a key cause of many rebellions, as people responded to the pattern of religious instability caused by the intense alternation between Catholic and Protestant faith. The Break with Rome created societal tensions, as religion no longer united people, but created a divide between Protestants and Catholics. In addition, religion was a strong justification for rebellion and though its justification was ironic as it was seen as treason, an unholy concept; many were prepared to fight for a cause they believed had religious backing.
The Western Rebellion or Prayer book rebellion in 1549 was clearly religious, as it arose from concern over the introduction of Protestant reforms. It was the announcement in early spring that the new liturgy in the Prayer Book must be uniformly used on Whitsunday 1549 that turned the Cornish opposition into full-scale rebellion. The deep societal divisions of the West Country were intensified by this religious change. Other than strong Catholic sentiments, it seems very likely that family alliances and political leanings played a part in sustaining this rebellion. Despite being largely religious, it was also slightly xenophobic, as many had the fear of introduction of Spanish Inquisition. Despite the rebellion being in many ways a direct response to religious reform, it had political undertones; with the hatred of the government’s greedy and careerist main agent in the area, William Body, who many saw as an evil adviser to stand up to. Thus, the cause of the rebellion was fundamentally religious, but exacerbated by political factors, as separating the two causes would oversimplify the rebellion.
Wyatt’s rebellion was partly caused by secular factors; however, it had strong religious causes. Wyatt was hesitant to make the rebellion completely religious because he likely believed that more support could be generated from xenophobic sentiments. Despite this, the rebellion took place in Kent in 1554, a county of strong Protestant belief, which had been experiencing reform since the 1530s. Furthermore, Wyatt’s co-leaders, the Duke of Suffolk, Peter James Carew and Sir James Croft sympathized with Protestantism. Many rebels would therefore have been concerned about Mary’s fixation on Catholicism, and even more critical, her proposed marriage to Prince Philip of Spain. The leadership of the rebellion, as well as the pools of support from which it derived, suggest that the rebellion had significant religious causes.
There was a great amount of support that could be gathered by giving a rebellion religious significance. A major cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace was religion; it was heavily motivated by the fear of the dissolution of monasteries3, part of the aftermath of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. This rebellion also included three separate uprisings that occurred in the northern parts of England that came to an estimated fifty thousand men. This caused unrest because monasteries served communities, providing welfare and acting as a charitable safety net for many. Rebellion corresponded with visits by King’s Commissioners for the settling of local grievances. These visits were mostly unsuccessful, as commoners resented the often wealthy officials. As the rebellion took place in the three regions of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Cumberland, the government therefore had the difficult task of crushing rebellion in various regions. Although it had involved political strategy in terms of the governmental response, The Pilgrimage of Grace was mostly rel
igious as a reaction to the Act of Supremacy and in terms of criticism of his reform of Catholicism. This religious tint was evident in The Demands of the Western Rebels. The source was written to convince Somerset to bring about change, especially in restoring Catholic tradition. This can be corroborated by the fact that it requests a return to ‘the masse in Latten’, a Catholic religious rite, as well as the belief in praying ‘for the soules in purgatory’, a belief that was criticized by Protestants. This demonstrates the strong sentiment that existed in favour of sustaining the practice of Catholicism rather than Protestantism, which Henry VIII was seeking to enforce a reformed Catholicism, through the new Church of England. As the final manifesto of the rebellion at the height of the uprisings of The Pilgrimage of Grace, this source is extremely valuable as it gives an accurate insight into the grievances of the rebels and their religious objectives. Overall, the source strongly suggests that the key motives for the Pilgrimage of Grace were religious; especially in terms of the respect for Catholic traditions and ‘auncient olde Ceremonyes’, the upholding of the Catholic faith and its rituals which were now under threat. Though limited in its provenance, having being written by a member of the nobility, it is still valuable in providing official information on the rebellion, and useful in helping to explain the religious issues that provoked the uprising itself.
RELIGIOUS SUMMARY In summary, Religion
Rebellions that were driven by political agenda appear most prevalently at the start and end of the Tudor period on account of the lack of clarity or agreement over the issues of succession. Dynastic rebellions were prominent during the early parts of the Tudor era due to the Yorkist and Lancastrian tensions over the throne. This meant that Henry Tudor had many enemies, namely the Yorkists who opposed his aim of the unification of the two houses. These Yorkists initially challenged him for his power with rebellions such as Lambert Simnel in 1486 and Perkin Warbeck in 1491, both of which were attempts to seize power.
Lambert Simnel’s rebellion was politically motivated, with the aim of overthrowing the king. This rebellion represented the long-standing Yorkist plots for power over Henry VII, who they saw as their enemy from the parallel Lancaster lineage. Simnel posed as the Earl of Warwick, who Henry VII had kept in the tower. He attempted to usurp the throne as the figurehead of the rebellion, which was in fact led by John la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. The earl of Lincoln was a Yorkist claimant that Richard III had named as heir. He was unsatisfied with his position at court that was given to him by Henry VII, suggesting that his motives were highly political. Other figures in opposition to the King aligned with the earl and funded troops, such as Lovel, Margaret Burgundy and Earl of Kildare. This greatly reduced the threat to the dynasty from pretenders like Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. The long-standing dynamic of the vying houses of York and Lancaster therefore was a direct cause of the unrest at the beginning of the period.
Another rebellion with strong political causes was the Pilgrimage of Grace. The rebellion appears religious at first glance, due to its reaction against the break with Rome, as well as rebels carrying banners with the ‘five wounds of Christ’. However, the rebellion did have political grounds, with The Break with Rome being a change in policy, it was arguably political. The high level of involvement of the lower classes of society including common people and clergy7 meant that it attracted a wide base of support that made it such a critical, political threat to Henry VIII’s government. At Pontefract Castle, the 8000 man army were outnumbered by the rebel army at a startling 30 000 men. The Pilgrimage of Grace therefore was a religious rebellion in how it was provoked, although there were many other factors contributing to the cause of the rebellion.
D. M. Loades in his recent study concluded that the real causes behind Wyatt’s rebellion were ‘secular and political…’4. He argued this on the grounds that the evidence available on the religious leanings of the leaders is inconclusive yet not insignificant, as religion played a role in shaping the views and political fears of rebels. Although Wyatt’s rebellion was partly caused by the widespread fear of a Catholic Reformation, it was ultimately a political rebellion. Many political elite, including Wyatt, believed that Mary’s marriage to Prince Philip of Spain would exclude Elizabeth from the throne. Additionally, Sir Thomas Wyatt was holding a political protest, and it was not a direct outcry against any of her specific religious changes. It also shows the fears of the political changes that may ensue from the marriage. Wyatt’s rebellion could therefore be seen as religio-political rather than solely religious. D. M. Loades in his recent study concluded that the real causes behind Wyatt’s rebellion were ‘secular and political…’4. He argued this on the grounds that the evidence available on the religious leanings of the leaders is inconclusive yet not insignificant, as it was clear that religion was a key factor in the rebellion. Overall, it is clear that the rebellion had a number of causes, though easily classified as religious at face value.
POLITICAL SUMMARY
After a decade of Elizabethan rule, by 1568, there were perceptions of a growing Catholic threat, leaving the issue of succession open and troubling. Most significantly, there was anger at Elizabeth’s Protestant changes, especially within the nobility that were a part of her government. The conflict of religious belief at the level of government was the case with the Northern Earl’s rebellion. This is evident on inspection of Northumberland’s trial speech, following the failure of the rebellion. In his speech he claims that his involvement in the rebellion was wholly religious. Furthermore, the source states that the ‘intent and meaning’ of the rebellion lay in ‘the reformation of religion’, but most importantly, to ensure that ‘the Queen of Scots’ was confirmed to be the ‘next heir’. The issue of succession, which he chooses to downplay, was in fact the real motivation behind his involvement. Elton similarly argues that religion was a ‘useful cloak’ , a cover-up for Northumberland’s true political motives and opportunism. This view is valid, as the rebellion involved significant political alliances, involving Northumberland and Mar Queen of Scots exchanging letters. This suggests that the usefulness of the source is limited due to Northumberland’s persuasive tone in trying to avoid being hanged for treason. Nevertheless, the source is useful in determining the cause of the rebellion, as Northumberland was a leader of the rebellion reflecting on its causes, three years after it had occurred. Elton argues that Northumberland’s religious justifications for rebellion were a cover up for his political motives. This view is valid because the exiled queen, Mary, Queen of Scots, believed that she had allies of the ‘old religion’, Catholicism, and this was indeed true as she found the support of various members of the nobility; notably,
Thomas Percy, the seventh earl of Northumberland with whom she exchanged letters. This demonstrates the religious basis of the Northern Earl’s rebellion, as Mary formed political allies in terms of religious belief.
– he says religious – quote
– this makes sense – annoyed at protestant reforms also wants mary
– highly valuable as he was leader and this was 3 years later so he was explaining why the rebelled
– She catholic – give your context on this
– He did use religion to get support – see proclamation of earls
– But Elton says cover up
– Can be seen with northemberland purpose – avoid treason
– He actually was v political – annoyed at E about what she did to him
At the start of the period, economic grievances were common, but an improving economy towards the end of the period under Elizabeth, with less price inflation, meant that there were fewer rebellions by the end of the period, despite existing socio-economic problems. This was a situation that created widespread discontent in the public, leading to rebellion and unrest. The resistance to taxation and forced subsidies was a common theme in economic rebellions in Tudor England, especially in the 1540s. Civil unrest was exacerbated by the rise of inflation the 1530s. The price of wheat had risen from about six shillings a quarter in 1500 to about ten shillings in 1540, and was to reach almost 30 shillings by 1600. This illustrates the dramatic extent to which inflation rose in this period and explains why there was resistance to taxation, as prices soared, people were unwilling to take on more financial responsibilities. However, socio-economic grievances were arguably a consistent cause of rebellions throughout the Tudor period, as there were almost always socio-economic tensions that could be intensified by drastic policy shifts or a generally unfavorable socio-economic climate.
The Cornish rebellion of 1497, quite like the Yorkshire rebellion, occurred due to outcry against economic policy imposed by the government. The rebellion opposed the raising of a forced loan for a war with Scotland that many deemed irrelevant. The county structure of the time in which parishes were regional units, there would have been a greater strain on finances due to the enclosure policy. The Yorkshire rebellion of 1489 lasted for less than a month and occurred for economic reasons. It manifested as protests at collection of subsidy for foreign policy purposes. The deeply resented tax was an additional burden in a relatively poor area. The unrest created by the poor harvest of 1488, which increased the degree of poverty in the region. However, the rebellion had political undertones, as the area had Yorkist sympathy, which meant they were more likely to challenge the government. This argument is supported by the fact that the leaders of the rebellion were members of the nobility; with one of them, Robert Chamber, being a yeoman, a gentleman of York. Therefore, the Cornish and Yorkshire rebellions demonstrated the economic discontent of the time, which played a part in causing rebellions in Tudor England.
The Amicable Grant, quite like the Yorkshire rebellion, was caused mainly due to outcry against economic policy imposed by the government. The rebellion opposed the raising of a forced loan for a war with Scotland that many deemed irrelevant. This opposition was not unsurprising, as Cornwall was rather distant from London and England as a whole, inhabited by a culturally distinct group of people who spoke Cornish as their first language. Their feelings of discontent would therefore be deepened by the region’s view of themselves as a cultural unit that could be separate from the rest of Tudor England. In summary, the Amicable Grant was an uprising that derived from economic grievances, yet was coloured by the political fact that the region felt culturally distinct from most of England and therefore reacted more fervently against taxation. The socio-economic grievances of the Amicable Grant are evident in The Duke of Norfolk to Wolsey which Norfolk wrote as a report on Suffolk and the issues there. The source highlights the issue of unemployment ‘lack of worke’ for many in the region, suggesting that socio-economic discontent sparked the rebellion. It argues that many ‘…knewe not howe to get their lyvinge.’ The source is limited by the fact that Norfolk was only discussing the issues in one of the regions of this widespread rebellion , Suffolk and therefore would be unlikely to give a complete picture of the rebellion’s causes. Furthermore, as a noble visiting the region, he may have not been fully representative of the views of the locals. However, the value of the source arguably lies in the fact that it gives an insight into
Another instance of socio-economic unrest was Kett’s rebellion. The main cause of Kett’s rebellion was the economic policy of enclosure. Enclosures were blamed by many contemporaries for increasing poverty, by turning families from their homes, and putting sheep in place of arable farming. Justice in terms of socio-economic issues was seen as an established right held by the commons and not a religious obligation for their landlords to fulfill on their behalf. Furthermore, ‘rights’ discourse concerning the common people is political as well as social, showing the complexity in the causes of rebellion. It was sparked by the alleged obstruction of the government commission by landlords. This rebellion was large, due to widespread economic discontent with riots and hedge-breaking occurring in Kent, Sussex, Cambridgeshire, as well as the Midlands and southwest counties. This indicates the great significance of economic grievances experienced by the public, causing caused the rebellion to be quite extensive. The royal commission investigating the problem of illegal enclosure in various regions encouraged Kett’s rebels to further outcry against this policy. This led rebels to believe that they had government support in acting against enclosures, even if they took unofficial action themselves. This shows that the rebellion, though fundamentally initiated by socio-economic grievances, was catalyzed by the semblance of government support. Overall, socio-economic grievances seemed to be a key cause of discontent among commoners, as rebellions were triggered by the initial economic discontent caused.
ECONOMIC SUMMARY
In conclusion, the Tudor era was a period that was never short of conspiracy, rebellion, and unrest, which is not surprising as it was founded on relatively insecure grounds. Through a single battle, Henry Tudor was able to obtain the crown and take power, but the insecurity surrounding the monarchy was the price to be paid. The period indeed saw socio-economic issues flare up discontent and create the atmosphere of rebellion. Also, the respective religious changes of the time, from abrupt switches between Protestantism and Catholicism from monarch to monarch, as well as revolutionary bills such as the Act of Supremacy (a symbol of the Break from Rome and a shift from Catholicism) caused tension and divisions in the public. However, these religious issues were simply a catalyst for rebellio
ns, which were arguably always involved with politics, as members of the nobility were almost always involved as the faces of rebellions. Overall, religion provided a strong motive for rebellions in terms of getting fervent support and mobility from the common people. However, the strategy and backing of rebellions was dependent on political forces, this suggests that rebellions were caused by politics and socio-economic issues, more than religion in this period. However, the importance of the three factors varied from rebellion to rebellion. This suggests that rebellions were always caused by politics rooted in socio-economic issues, despite religious justification frequently used by rebel leaders. Nonetheless, religion was woven into the very fabric of people’s lives due to communities being organised into parishes and these institutions providing welfare for their population. This made religion a recurring cause of rebellions in the Tudor psyche. Tudor rebellions were therefore fundamentally caused by politics, though usually coloured by the religious beliefs of rebels and underscored with the socio-economic issues faced by communities.