13. Instability and consolidation: 'the mid-Tudor Crisis'. 1547-63

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.