You are on page 1of 5

1

Stephen Hawes. Who rebelled against Tudor authority and why?


Causes of revolt in the Tudor period can be placed into three broad categories:
economic concerns, religious concerns and political concerns. Economic concerns
included both responses to government policy such as increases to taxation, but
also economic phenomena such as inflation or dearth. Religious concerns were
generally limited to a desire to slow the English reformation and maintain
traditional, local religious structures. Political concerns included anti-monarchist
feeling and were not particularly prevalent during the period, mostly felt by a
few disgruntled members of the nobility. There are links between these causes,
such as the agrarian and ownership nature of Church reform and the religious
choices of the monarch and therefore rebellions occurred for more than one
cause. Dividing one form the other or others is often impossible, due to a paucity
or confliction of sources.1 However, the multiplicity of reasons led to participation
from a large cross-section of society. Large rebellions therefore typically included
commons, clergy, gentry and some section of the nobility. That there is debate as
to whether the gentry were willing or coerced participants in revolts indicates
that there was still class tension within rebel communities. This in turn lends
itself to the idea that rebellions in this period by and large did not seek to alter
the structure of society, but were focussed on reversing an aspect or aspects of
Tudor policy. However, this essay will also argue that this changed, to some
degree, over the period. Speaking generally, rebellion was driven mainly by
economic concerns in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, by religion in the
mid sixteenth century and with revolts taking an increasingly anti-authoritarian
by the beginning of the seventeenth century. The ability of rebel leaders to gain
followers in this later period was significantly reduced, in part due to the majority
having an aversion to the removal of an anointed or the alteration of the fabric of
society. This essay will therefore examine each of these three groups of factors in
turn, providing a roughly chronological outlook. It will argue that challenges to
Tudor rule came from diverse strains of local communities, who essentially
desired lesser or changed forms of government intervention. It will also argue
that challenges that directly threatened Tudor monarchical authority were
extremely few in number.
Prior to major religious controversy, the revolts in Henry VII's reign and those in
the early part of Henry VIII's were based on economic grievances. The biggest
such grievance was the creation of new forms of taxation, known as subsidies,
that were used primarily to raise armies to fight in foreign conflicts. This led to
violent rebellion in Yorkshire in 1489, when a levy was collected for a war with
France, and in Cornwall in 1497, when a levy was collected for war with Scotland
after Henry VII had assaulted the privileges of the stannaries. Participation in
these revolts, especially that of 1497, was wide. This is indicated by the number
of fines handed out by the government in the aftermath of the Cornish revolt,
representing a large and varied group not only in Cornwall but throughout the
regions through which they marched. Protests against Wolsey's Amicable Grant,
1 Jane Whittle, 'Lords and Tenants in Kett's Rebellion 1549', in Past and Present,
No. 207: 2010 p4.

2
although primarily led by the clergy, did once again feature a large number of
the commons and gentry.2 However, economic grievances extended further
throughout the period and were supporting factors in revolts that purported to be
for religious purposes. The Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 was in part prompted by
poor harvests in previous years, and the Statue of Uses in 1535 ensured that
many of the gentry supported or remained ambivalent to the process. The
Pontefract articles make reference to the ending of gressums and enclosure,
which showed the degree to which this was a recurring issue. 3 Protests could also
be prompted by economic factors that were not completely related to the
government's own policies. Kett's rebellion of 1549 was primarily in response to
enclosure occurring in East Anglia, but it was also exacerbated by high levels of
inflation.4 Indeed, it is probable that high price increases throughout the
sixteenth century were such that they increased tension almost all the way
throughout the Tudor period and were coupled with phenomena such as
population growth to present an image of a changing world. Whittle argues that
it was this which contributed to the spread of rebellion, especially in times of
high uncertainty such as 1549, with ultimately secondary causes contributing to
the outbreak of rebellion.5 These extraneous economic factors were so important
that when they were not present, rebellion of the commons did not occur. This
can be seen in the Catholic rising of 1569, which failed to gain support at least in
part because of the relative economic prosperity that was enjoyed in the north
during that period.6 It is no surprise that this was such a prime motivator of the
commons throughout this period as it was during times of dearth or high taxation
that the threat of eviction or starvation became far more prominent. One can
therefore judge that although economics played a primary function in causing
rebellions in the early Tudor period, it continued to have a role in later rebellions
or in explaining relative quiet. Economics was also more acutely associated with
the commons, whilst clergy and gentry would rebel to a greater degree with
ideological motive.
However, rebellion against religious reforms was seen in every tier of society. The
Church structure and local religious tradition dominated every aspect of life in
rural parishes. Its disruption by unprecedented government intervention from
2 Diarmaid MacCulloch and Anthony Fletcher, Tudor Rebellions. London: Taylor
and Francis: 2008, pp 21-22.
3 Ibid.pp 39-42.
4 Alison Wall, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. London,
Hodder Headline Group: 2000, pp 164-7.
5 Jane Whittle, 'Lords and Tenants in Kett's Rebellion 1549', in Past and Present,
No. 207: 2010. p. 10
6 Alison Wall, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. p. 177.

3
1536 onward sparked resistance partly as it violated deeply held religious
principles but also because it was, in peripheral areas such as the West Country
or County Durham, an illustration of the growth of oppressive royal power.
Although Duffy may have been exaggerating in his description of the English
Reformation as being exclusively negative, his idea that a lack of consistent
ideology damaged both it and the parishes where visitation occurs does appear
legitimate.7 The uncertainty of the Henrician reforms led to wild rumours being
circulated, for example that all Church property, or even churches themselves,
were going to be removed. This was the atmosphere of mass hysteria that
prevailed in Louth in 1536, where one of the opening acts of the Pilgrimage of
Grace was the capture of the commissioner that visited there. 8 It is clear from
the reaction of the commons to reforms such as the suspension of Latin mass,
which was met with disgust, for example in Sampford Courtenay in Devon, that
genuine religious feeling was at the centre of such atmospheres and their
subsequent revolts.9 This led to a genuine desire for religious reform as
expressed during revolts where documents were produced. An example of this is
the Pontefract Articles written by Robert Aske and the rebelling gentry at the
height of the Pilgrimage of Grace. In this document, the legitimacy of the Marian
cult is restored, abbeys regain their status and the superiority of the Roman See
in all matters of 'cura animarum' is restored. 10 Thus religious fervour amongst
protestors can be transferred into doctrinal theory, showing an ideological link
between the commons and the gentry. MacCulloch argues that this link was
exploited via outward demonstrations of religious conviction, which acted to
unify protesters. The best example of this from the Pilgrimage of Grace is the
Badge of the Five Wounds of Christ. This not only symbolised the Pilgrims' belief
that they were upholding the true religion but also that they were unified in their
cause.11 Areas of the country which rebelled against Tudor rule on multiple
occasions were often those where a strong regional identity could be maintained,
such as Yorkshire, the West Country and East Anglia. In many cases, these
identities were linked to local religious practice via parish pride, religious
hierarchical processions or local saints. All of these were threatened during the
English Reformation, demonstrating that religion and local identity were
inextricably linked.
7 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Views on Religion in
England, 1400-1580. Yale University Press, New Haven: 2005, p. 379.
8 Diarmaid MacCulloch and Anthony Fletcher, Tudor Rebellions, p. 28.
9 Alison Wall, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. p. 173
10 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII. Vol XI.
James Gairdner, Ed. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1888. pp 506-7.
11 Diarmaid MacCulloch and Anthony Fletcher, Tudor Rebellions, p. 43.

4
However, religious rebellions in the latter half of the sixteenth century often
attracted less popular support as they took on a fervently Catholic identity. In the
course of Elizabeth's reign, this identity became associated with anti-nationalism
and conspiracy, and was therefore a marginal view. This can be seen in the
Catholic rebellion of 1569, which also began in northern England, but was for the
most part instigated by dissenting Catholic aristocrats. At its height, it was able
to attract four-and-a-half to five-and-a -half thousand supporters, demonstrating
a residual Catholic identity in the north of England. 12 However, this pales in
comparison to the estimated forty thousand participants in the Pilgrimage of
Grace and Lincolnshire revolt, indicating a decline in religious dissent between
the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. In the Lincolnshire revolt, it was,
according to M.E. James, the gentry that was persuaded of the need to revolt by
the commons, a subversion demonstrating the strength of religious feeling that
would not exist in later periods.13
Aside from declining Catholic loyalty and the lack of economic pressure, one can
identify the growth of anti-monarchism in revolts as a reason for their declining
popularity. The revolt of 1569 was linked to a plot to remove Elizabeth and place
Mary, Queen of Scots on the throne. 14 This was due to the increasingly factional
nature of Tudor high politics as succession became more disputable after the
death of Henry VIII. Prior to this, revolts had expressed a loyalty to the king. The
Pilgrimage of Grace, MacCulloch and Fletcher argue, expressed a desire to
illustrate to the king that his advisors -- especially Cromwell -- had failed to
conform to what was supposedly the king's wishes. 15 Although this may certainly
have been a pretence, it demonstrated that all forms of political discourse were
rooted in loyalty to the monarch even when dissent was expressed. Later, when
the objective of revolts became directed at the person of the monarch, they
became more aristocratic and unable to garner the support of the commons. This
is evidenced by the revolt of 1554-5, when Wyatt did not admit to his followers
that one of his key aims was the removal of Mary I, preferring to focus on the
religious aspect of the campaign.16 These aristocratic anti-monarchical revolts
could be interpreted as a response to the growing power of the state and crown
bureaucracy, which limited the traditional relative autonomy of magnates.
Brigden argues that this was the case during Essex's rebellion in 1601. 17 This
would explain why such rebellions failed to gain momentum within lower levels
12 Alison Wall, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. p 176.
13 S.J. Gunn, 'Peers, Commons and Gentry in the Lincolnshire Revolt of 1536', in
Past and Present, No. 123: 1989, p. 52f.
14 Ibid.
15 Diarmaid MacCulloch and Anthony Fletcher, Tudor Rebellions, p. 34.
16Alison Wall, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. p 178f.

5
of society, as they would feel relatively ill disposed towards a cause that was
ultimately irrelevant to them. This shift of focus would also go some way to
explain why the reign of Elizabeth I was overall more peaceful than the reigns of
Henry VII and Henry VIII.
The cause of rebellions therefore changed throughout the Tudor period.
Economic considerations became increasingly less important. Religious identity,
which accounted for the larger revolts in the sixteenth century, became a far
more marginal reason for revolt in the reign of Elizabeth I, whilst purely political
dissent was increasingly important. With these changes in motive, the
participants in rebellions also changed. Broadly speaking, one can say that fewer
members of the lower classes rebelled against Tudor authority as the sixteenth
century went on. However, it must also be noted that this transition was not
entirely smooth. Rebellions against religious changes in the reign of Henry VIII
often also had economic motives. Furthermore, revolts with the intention of
removing the monarch were often also influenced by religious tension
particularly as a latent aristocratic Catholic identity developed. What therefore
emerges is a continuous development of revolutionary impetus throughout the
Tudor period from economic to ideological and demotic to elitist.
Word Count: 1,917

Bibliography:
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII. Vol XI.
James Gairdner, Ed. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1888
Brigden. S, New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485-1603,
Harmondsworth, Penguin: 2000
Duffy. E, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Views on Religion in England,
1400-1580. Yale University Press, New Haven: 2005
Gunn, S.J., 'Peers, Commons and Gentry in the Lincolnshire Revolt of 1536', in
Past and Present, No. 123: 1989
MacCulloch. D. and Fletcher. A, Tudor Rebellions. London: Taylor and Francis:
2008
Wall. A, Power and Protest in Early Modern England, 1525-1640. London, Hodder
Headline Group: 2000
Whittle. J, 'Lords and Tenants in Kett's Rebellion 1549', in Past and Present, No.
207: 2010

17 Susan Brigden, New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485-1603,
Harmondsworth, Penguin: 2000, pp. 363-4.

You might also like