Essay examples on this period

‘TO WHAT EXTENT DID ROYAL AUTHORITY DECLINE IN THE YEARS 1547-1558’

Though Henry VIII had left a flawed legacy there was no doubt that royal authority had remained strong. When Edward inherited the throne it would have been a challenge for an adult let alone a minor. There was also a religious upheaval as when he died in 155, catholic sister Mary succeeded the throne and began to convert England back to Catholicism. There are many different opinions on whether the crown managed to uphold royal authority throughout this turmoil.

One of the arguments that royal authority was in decline is the frequency of rebellion, especially the two in 1549 which John Guy said was ‘the closest Tudor England had come to class war’. Somerset’s failure to deal with the rebellions showed weakness, as his troops were stretched thin between tackling the rebellions and upholding the garrisons in Scotland. It was the Kett’s rebellion that emphasised his weakness as in order to deal with the rebellion he had to put a sizable force in the hands of the Earl of Warwick this was a risky move as he was his potential opponent for the control of the young king Edward IV. Then the implications of the Wyatt’s rebellion for Mary were, though the Protestants were a minority they weren’t one that could be ignored and it also showed the extent to which the country opposed the Spanish marriage to Phillip. Wyatt had also come very close to success as to he had managed to raise a large army, however Mary had behaved resolutely in a time of crisis her councillors kept their heads and there were no defectors. This is a sign that Mary had managed to keep hold of authority; unlike Somerset whose failure to consult had left him painfully reminded that he wasn’t the King.

Another reason Royal authority seemed to be undermined was the extent to which the religious reforms had such opposition, this was shown clearly by the rebellions because two out of three were religiously motivated.  The more radical side to Edwards’s reforms was shown in February 1547 by the denunciation of images in London. Duffy describes the reforms as a charter for revolutions ‘the most sweeping change in religion that England had ever seen’ there were fears from the council that the reforms were proving to destructive and it would cause a rebellion, which it did. Then when Northumberland took over he removed all of the conservative bishops and replaced them with active Protestants. However opposition to these reforms was clear as Susan Brigden says only 20% were protestant which meant that 80 % weren’t, and catholic survivalist remained heavy in the North. Even Hooper in 1550 admitted that the slow pace of reform was due to the public uncooperativeness this is a clear sign that royal authority was in decline. However even when Mary succeeded the throne and was on a mission to restore Catholicism, she came across difficulties as the Church was now so entrenched in Statue Law. She faced problems mainly with the land that had been claimed during the dissolution of the monasteries; many of the nobles had gained from this land and therefore were reluctant to give it up, this lead to a parliamentary blocking of Catholicism. This shows parliament undermining her authority.

But despite all of the opposition to the reform, Edward still pushed them through ruthlessly. Though Somerset’s reign was described as cautious, this is shown through the common book of prayer that was written in 1549 to reduce religious tension. However on another level the reforms were radical despite the public’s disapproval, the denunciation of images in London in 1547 reflected the radical attitudes of people like Nicholas Ridely. These changes were unpopular in many parts of the country because they shopped many of the religious ceremonies were no longer allowed to be held. But despite this they still pushed on with the changed introducing the injunctions in 1547, this showed the radical attitudes of the crown and were therefore more likely to be enforced. Northumberland however proved to be even more radical then Somerset with David Loads and Dairmaid MacCulloch both agree that Cranmer was right to be suspicious about his radicalism in 1552. This was clear by 1550 when he outmanoeuvred the conservatives on the Privy Council showing the power of royal authority, he wanted to continue the strategies placed by Somerset and gain more wealth from the church. Though he seems more cautious his religious reforms were more radical, MacCulloch said this ‘reflected the increasing influence that Edward IV had on policy making’.

However the fact that after Edwards’s death the legitimate succession of Mary I was held up despite Edward IV and Northumberland trying to stop it shows that religious authority was still strong.  Henry VIII stated that if Edward should die then Mary would take over the throne, but Edward knew that Mary was a strong catholic and to see her take the throne would mean the restoration of Catholicism, something which he didn’t want to see happen.  Dale Hoak said that ‘the devise could be blamed on Edward as he was anxious to see Protestantism stay on after his death’. So he named his successor named Lady Jane Grey his successor, in 1553 she married Northumberland’s son Guildford Dudley and the two sisters were once again illegitimate this time due to letters of patent. All they needed was to call Parliament so that it was water tight, but Edward died before this was possible and that meant that it was illegal. Mary saw what was happening so started to gather support for her and the Catholic faith, the council were uneasy about Northumberland’s actions as they were illegal so also sided with Mary and they  proclaimed her Queen on the 19^th of July.  The fact that the succession still took place even though it meant an upheaval of religion proves that royal authority still remained strong.

When marry came to the throne in 1553 she was anxious to get married as she was already 37 with no heir.  However this proved difficult the English candidate was Edward Courtney Earl of Devon, but he was politically inexperienced and marrying him would cause fractional rivalries as it meant that his family would come into power, this meant that she never saw him as a serious candidate. She preferred Prince Phillip II of Spain; he was a devout catholic and was far more politically experienced. His father Charles V had always been of great help to Mary as he had offered her support and guidance. But the public feared a foreign marriage as they were scared of being overtaken by the Spanish monarchy; this meant that a treaty had to be drawn up saying that if she died before he did then he would have no right to the English throne. But this didn’t stop rebellion the Wyatt’s rebellion showed how much political opposition that there was towards the marriage, showing that royal authority may have been in decline.

However in many respects Mary was considered a successful ruler during the Wyatt’s rebellion there had been no defectors, she had managed to keep her head as well as he councillors. This shows that she had a great deal of authority amongst her councillors and was able to rule, it also didn’t put her off marrying Phillip. Her religious policy also wasn’t purely repressive, she helped to restored the resources of the church after they had been eroded for 20 years, she made sure that the bishops appointed had to take the pastoral role seriously in conjunction with the catholic church.  Her reforms given more time could have potentially worked. Financially there was progress made in the revenue of administration.  Long term security was gained from the plan for coinage that was drawn up in 1556-1558, it was the thoroughness of Mary that enabled efficient implementation under Elizabeth.

In conclusion, I believe that royal authority was faced with issues during the two reigns. This was due to the amount of rebellions that took place over the course of the two reigns and how these were handled. Somerset ended up putting power in the hands of his rivals which lead to his downfall, and although Mary had kept her head the fact the rebellion was caused due to her marriage shows a decline in religious authority. However both of them managed to introduce their religious reforms and although both of them experienced problems, these problems could have overcome had they been given more time. It was the length of both reigns that meant that they religious policy was doomed to fail.

The view that there was a crisis in face of combination of weak rulers, number of financial and economic problems, a series of rebellions, religious reformations, and foreign policy failures in the middle years of the sixteen century was first implicit in the writings of influential historians, such as A.F. Pollard and S.T. Bindoff and first explained by W.R.D. Jones in his book ‘The Mid-Tudor Crisis 1539-1563’.
Revisionists like David Loades, Jennifer Loach and Robert Tittler, who have written under the influence of detailed research, argued this notion and even suggest that this period was actually one of success and great achievements.  Moreover there is another view of mid-Tudor crisis which suggest that both traditionalists and revisionist are wrong in their assumptions as John Matusiak  stated there was no crisis and although there were achievements in mid-Tudor England , they couldn’t be characterized as ‘years of achievement’ and  in any overarching sense both interpretations are wrong.

To begin with the years of 1547 to 1553 lies between two big reigns first of Henry VIII and the second one is the reign of Elisabeth I, who both made a fundamental changes and both enjoyed long and dramatic reigns. The line of succession was not always secure or consistent and it has been argued that Tudor monarchs were not always well suited to their role as Edward was just nine years old when he became a king in 1547 and Mary was female, and so considered at that time to be less capable of ruling the country. Furthermore Mary I had been declared illegitimate at some point by her father as Henry VIII married three times before he had a male heir, moreover none of his children had children of their own. All these led to much instability such as Edward VI, boy-king who was protected by liberal Earl of Somerset and corrupt Duke of Northumberland, who in order tried to install Lady Jane Grey and alter the legitimate line of succession. Not surprisingly political in-fighting was a problem throughout the 1500s. Factions would go in and out of favor and try to get more power. This led to a certain amount of instability as the Tudors were threatened by factions who became too powerful.

There were crushing foreign policy failures. The Duke of Somerset’s costly and ineffective campaigns in Scotland and against the French (£1 million) between 1547 and 1549 seemed to begin a precipitous slide, and then came, under the Duke of Northumberland, the Treaty of Boulogne in March 1550, which A.F.  Pollard described as ‘the most ignominious … signed by England during the century’. Mary Tudor’s loss of Calais January 1558 was seemed as a disastrous foreign policy. National pride was suffered and these contributed to the crisis as people were not happy.

During the years of 1547 to 1553 England experienced ‘as many serious rebellions in some-dozen years as there were for the whole of the rest of the Tudor era’. There were three major rebellions the Western Rebellion 1549, Kett’s rebellion 1549 and Wyatt’s rebellion, not to mention other uprisings. Most of this rebellions were in the South of England near to the capital,’the heart of Tudor power’ , making them even more worrying to the monarchy. In addition the impact of the first two was magnified by their occurrence at a time of war with Scotland and France. Furthermore these rebellions changed Somerset’s foreign policy as he withdrew troops from Scotland needed to suppress uprising, scaled down favoured policy of garrisoning Scotland and all these gave the advantage to French who in order took Boulogne in summer 1549.

Problems related to religion effected the country for almost half a century from 1530,Henry VIII’s Reformation and split from Catholic Church,  to 1580, Mary I burning around 300 Protestant ‘heretics’ in her reign of less than five years. Under Edward VI England was made Protestant but then under Mary I it was returned to Catholicism. Such quick changes from one extreme to the other caused sense of crisis, and it also could be argued that religious change may have been the main problem for the Tudors as it destabilized the roots of society and contributed to the rebellions witnessed in this period.

Throughout this period there were disastrous economic problems. Many of them were caused by debasement. This was where a small percentage of the value was removed from each coin as it was made and then used to make new coins. This helped in the short term, but led to inflation and worse problems later. This was a huge problem for peasants, who normally spent around 80% of their income on food. The population also increased from about 2.3 million in 1500 to 3 million in Edward’s reign, as well as continuous military expenditure which amounted to around 3.5 million between 1544 and 1550.All these led to huge inflation and unemployment, moreover there were lower wages and increased rents, poor harvests in 1549- 51, 1544-6, which caused migrations to cities and towns. There were also introduction of enclosure and governments ineffective attempts to resolve situation. The economic situation was worsen by a crisis in cloth trade , which led to a 15 % slump in wool exports in 1551 and a further  decline by 20 % in the following year.

Nowadays there are lots of counter- arguments amongst historians, who tried to argue the meaning of term ‘crisis’ to these years. And for many of them crisis denotes the situation involving imminent danger of systematic collapse in political, social or economic terms or in all three simultaneously. We can say at once that there was no crisis for the essential mechanisms of the state in mid-Tudor England as Parliament’s status was not destroyed, the Royal Supremacy was not overthrown during Mary’s reign retained its independence from Hapsburg Spain . The quality of Mary’s I reign has often been criticized by traditional historians like A.F. Pollard who stated that the regime was weak and unproductive, however this can be argued and there is little doubt that central and local government remained in control throughout the reigns of Edward and Mary, and furthermore it can be said that Elizabeth I inherited a fully functioning government. Although there were many rebellions throughout the Tudor period, they all were effectively suppressed and none succeeded in overthrowing the monarchy. The Privy Council, Parliament, although it was resolved in 1549, 1550, 1552 and 1553, and local administration also operated consistently and effectively throughout the middle of the century, helping to prevent crisis by remaining loyal to the monarchy. Rebellions in Edward’s reign are now radically reviewed in terms of the responses of local communities to mainly local grievances and were the result of social frustrations to alienate the aristocratic leadership and in any way they didn’t directly challenged the state. It was a social crisis but it could be attributed to the whole Tudor period.

 Reassessment of the economic dislocation of this period shows that economic crisis did appear in agrarian sector of economy. After the break with Catholic Church, there were fewer days off than there had been before. This helped the economy to keep going in difficult times. Moreover the cloth market recovered from Antwerp crash, which was one of the main factors of the agrarian crisis. During the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I reforms to the administration of Crown finances was introduced. The Duke of Northumberland had set up a commission to investigate the ways in which revenue administration may be run more efficiently and then Mary I and her councillors implemented the changes in 1554. These changes led to Lord Treasurer Winchester to took over to Exchequer both the Court of First Fruits and Tenths and the Court of Augmentations and more efficient methods introduced to the Exchequer which lasted for the rest of the Tudor period. In addition in 1558 a new Book of Rates was introduced with updated customs rates, which   substantially increased customs revenues. Moreover these changes were described by Alan Smith as’ fundamental for Elisabeth’s solvency and thus for the Elizabethan achievements as a whole’.  

According to David Loades rebellion and foreign policy crisis were not confined to mid-Tudor period. Moreover the most threatened rebellion in 16^th century was in 1536 with the Pilgrimage of grace. Some historians also argued that the situation in England cannot be described as a crisis in comparison with France that suffered a series of ‘faction-ridden civil wars’. Loads claim that the mid-Tudor years ‘should be seen on a very positive light, not as years of crisis, but as years of achievement’. In his view ‘the true significance of the reign of Edward and Mary lies less in what happened than in what did not happen’. John Matusiak introduced a new view in the debate on whether there was a crisis or not and he argued that both traditionalists and revisionists are wrong in their assumptions. His view is that there was no crisis and the achievements were not so great to describe these years as years of great achievements, he called mid-Tudor years as “Years of Trauma and Survival” and so in his words it was a time of trauma during which the state’s efforts were focused on survival rather than achievement.

Although England became close to a ‘sense of crisis’, the essential state machinery was not under threat, my view goes with post-revisionist assumptions, as it was years of huge economical and social problems, which the state tried to control by introducing sensible policies, so it wasn’t a crisis but neither there were achievements as reforms introduced needed more time to achieve result. Looking at Elizabethan reign we can deduced that Elisabeth implemented many policies worked out by Mary I and her government, for instance recoinage, according to C.E. Challis ‘Elisabeth could never have tackled the problem of the coinage either as quickly or as effectively as she did had it not been so thoroughly aired amongst government officials in the immediately preceding years’. So all in all, by examining range of relevant evidence about government, society, rebellions and religious changes it could be stated that there were no crisis as there was no ‘apocalypse’ and the state didn’t collapse.

During the reigns of Edward VI and Mary significant religious change was made, with the advancement of reformation that had begun under Henry VIII during Edward VI's reign, and the immediate re-catholicisation of England under Mary. It is important to assess whether there was actually any religious revolution in Britain at the time- there was rapid, and contradictory change to the Henrician regime, perhaps because of the ambiguity of his religious policy, manifested in the fact that his heirs had such conflicting religious views . Because of this change to the regime, the turbulent nature of the period would suggest that there was a revolution of sorts; however this does not necessarily entail radical implementation. Regarding the claim that 'England was torn apart', whilst there was religious factionalism, there is a debate around whether there was a crisis at this time. It is my opinion that there was, but I would not attribute it solely to religious policies- there were many other deciding factors, that played more instrumental roles in this crisis .

The religious policies under Edward were revolutionary, but the changes under Somerset were mainly gradual and moderate- there were three major policies introduced in 1547, including the denunciation of images, injunctions and the dissolution of the chantries . These were all relatively major changes to the church; however they reflected radical attitudes amongst the clergy (Nicholas Ridley is a prominent example) and within government. Although these views were not necessarily representative of popular opinion, opposition did not form rebellion until 1549, when the Book of Common Prayer was introduced- nevertheless, although this rebellion was the result of this, in reality the rebels did not have much time to read the book, and there is a suggestion that the root of the dissatisfaction was in fact a class issue between peasants and landowners, and the taxation introduced under Somerset, rather than just religious revolution .  Northumberland's religious policy was the most radical and fast paced during Edward's reign, specifically with the reformation of communion, the removal of altars in 1550 and the 1552 Act of Uniformity. Although, again, there was general opposition to the changes, with only an estimated 20% of Londoners were protestant by 1557, Christopher Haigh believes (through information of people leaving money to the parish in their wills) that religious crisis  was at parish level. This shows that, although a potential threat, religious policy under Edward did not cause England to be 'torn apart '.

Religious policy under Mary completely reversed the changes made under Edward VI, demonstrating another religious revolution during this period. The ecclesiastical laws passed during Edward's reign were repealed immediately, and the order of service was restored. Clergy who had married were deprived of their livings in 1553, and the Act of Repeal was passed in 1555. This would be have met with much less opposition amongst the public. However, some may argue that the burning of 289 heretics was a sign of a crisis caused by religious revolution- nevertheless, Hughes argues that 'the burnings had no effect whatever; that for the mass of the nation the burnings were simply a few more capital executions than usual...', and in this sense, Mary's religious reforms did not cause any particular crisis in perspective .

 Factors in Edward's reign that would have had a greater effect on the creation of a crisis during this time were much more economic in nature- there was considerable problems in this area under Somerset. Because of poor administrative skills, specifically with France and Scotland (that eventually cumulated into the Battle of Pinkie in 1547), a significant amount of crown expenditure was in foreign policy. One of the methods of funding it was through the debasement of the coinage, and although it may seem successful due to the fact that £537,000 was raised in 4 years, this method increased inflation massively. To further the economic turmoil caused by the debasement of the coinage, the fact that its restoration (the only viable solution to the problems caused) was not possible meant that enclosure was blamed- this would have further fuelled Kett’s Rebellion of 1549, showing that the crown finances played a pivotal ,and primary role in the turmoil of England under Somerset . Although Northumberland’s rule in this respect was relatively stable, the war with France at the end of her reign was expensive, and the remittal of Edward’s last subsidy, whilst popular, was expensive. Overall, mainly under Somerset, economic policy contributed to the state of the country massively], arguably more so than religious policy.

 Foreign policy played a massive  role in the crisis between 1547 and 1588.  The continuation of bad relations with Scotland and France further tore apart the country, through the obvious economic strains of the 1549 and1556 wars with France. The loss of Boulogne in 1550 in the treaty with France and Calais in 1558, under Northumberland and Mary respectively, were considered national disgraces and displayed political weakness in England. Mary’s marriage to Philip caused internal opposition from within government, as it was considered a driving force for the entrance into another expensive war with France in 1556, shown through Wyatt’s rebellion. Overall, England’s foreign policy was a failure during this period, and this had a significant effect internally, contributing to the crisis of the time.

Rebellions in this era all had foundations in political motivation- the Western Rebellion was only partially motivated by the 1547 Act of Uniformity, with class antagonism and the taxation of sheep under Somerset factoring, suggesting that whilst religion only served to fuel an inevitability.  The East Anglian rebellions of 1549 appear to have been caused by resentment of taxation and local political, social and agrarian antagonisms. Kett’s rebellion of 1549 was a direct response to enclosure and its effects on the peasantry in England, whilst Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554 was caused mainly by Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain, the subsequent influence of Spain on government, and the undermining of royal authority this would cause.

In conclusion, whilst there was a genuine rapid religious revolution, that played a small part in the instigation of internal opposition to the regimes of Edward VI and Mary, there is more decisive evidence that shows that rebellion was caused by foreign policy, economic failure and class antagonism- rebellion is the best indicator as to whether a regime is failing, and the fact that religious revolution was only a small factor, suggests that it did not tear England apart.

Interesting and effective distinction between types of rebellion.  I note your work on economic turmoil is particularly good as is your overview. Possibly too limited in terms of discussing remit of the rebellions but this is a minor critique. 20/25. I shall take a copy of this to use an exemplar on Moodle.