How far can the rebellions of 1549 be considered a key turning point in the changing nature of rebellion against Tudor rule in England 1485 to 1587?
The period between 1485 and 1587 sprouted a large amount of rebellions during the reign of the Tudors. The 1549 rebellions can be seen as significant in the changing nature of rebellion based on numerous factors. Yet were there any other rebellions which contributed more to the changing nature?
What may have influenced the changing nature of rebellion was the backdrop of the controversial way the Tudors came to power, leaving dynastic issues within the period. This can be seen in two of the rebellions during the reign of Henry VII. Warbeck and Simnel were deemed as ‘pretenders’ and offered little threat to the King. However these pretenders both received support from the Duchess of Burgundy. This foreign support could have turned from a very small scale movement into a war. This clearly shows that 1549 was not the only mark of change on the Tudor period and that these rebellions started the ‘domino effect’, which could have caused all the rebellions during the Tudor period. Kett’s rebellion involved a large amount of Socio-Cultural issues, and even The Western rebellion held the situation of enclosure as a deep lying cause. Yet after these rebellions very little socio-economic issues were raised and even the small factor raised by Wyatt’s rebellion was constructed to raise a larger participation. Fletcher and MacCulloch support this when they state, “the success depended on the secrecy...and enthusiasm…for a political cause” . This displays that no rebellion post 1549 used the Socio-Economic factor as a leading cause, clearly inferring that 1549 was a turning point in the changing nature of rebellion against Tudor rule.
Religious issues however remained constant, appearing in rebellions during the remaining years of the period and caused large bouts of unrest, which is supported by Fellows who states, “religious changes…resulted in the breakdowns in law and order” . This seems to lesser the extent that 1549 was a turning point in the changing nature. This is reinforced by the fact that the Pilgrimage was the first rebellion to include religion. After the rebellion religion became one of the most important factors in the causation of rebellion, as it was used right up until the Mary Queen of Scots plots which wanted to put a Catholic monarch back onto the throne of England. However the Pilgrimage of Grace followed the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which declared England as a sovereign state with Henry VIII as the religious leader; this is the most probable reason in why many rebellions formed on the basis of religious grounds, rather than the imitation of the Pilgrimage. Supported by Hillerband who declares, “Supremacy act of 1534…caused growing unrest” . Boosting the extent to which the 1549 rebellions can be viewed as a key turning point compared with the Pilgrimage, but not compared with the monarchs. Supported by the instability and lack of consistency of religion during the Tudor period, which is likely to have sparked the Western rebellion, who were disgusted with the bible being translated into English, ‘Item we will have the masse in Latten’. This is extracted straight from the Western rebel’s demands. These points do suggest that the monarchs were a bigger reason for change in causes because of their policy changes, which does lower the extent to which the rebellions of 1549 can be viewed as a key turning point. However the monarchs did not choreograph the methods or determine the size or rebellions.
However the size of The Pilgrimage, which grew to “…30,000” participants as stated by Bush; is seen as a massive factor in why Thomas Cromwell fell from power and possibly in later rebellions this could be why Kett’s and Western stood up against Somerset, decreasing the extent to which the 1549 rebellions were a turning point, especially if consideration is taken that the Pilgrimage was considered a Pilgrimage rather than a rebellion like all the others; this is supported by Fellows who agrees that the Pilgrimage was “Unique that it was conceived as a Pilgrimage” . While the 1549 rebellions did not match up on size to that of the Pilgrimage what it did do was dramatically reduce the number post 1549 that were involved in the rebellion. This can be seen as all the rebellions in the period after 1549 could only get 11,000 participants between all of them, clearly inferring that the people had become tired of rebellion, especially if their socio-economic troubles were not being rebelled against; reinstating an extent of significance in reflection of change during the Tudor period caused by 1549.
Scale also can be used to determine which rebellions held key aspects of changing nature against Tudor rule. This can be seen as the Pilgrimage of Grace caused Henry to lose all control of the north, which should have implemented change on where rebellions took place. However rebellions still continued in the East and North of England, which infers that little changed. Yet there were only two rebellions that saw an influence in the South West of England. The Cornish rebellion came first, followed 52 years later by the Western rebellion. The Western rebellion stopped rebellion in the South West suggesting that the rebellions of 1549 was a key aspect, however after the rebellion horrific killings and summary executions in the aftermath of the rebellion may have shaken the whole region, leading to the possibility that the Western people had conceded that the Tudors had taken a strong grip of the county, through the Tudor strategy of centralisation, “a centralising process of the Monarchy developed in England” , as declared by JV Suanzes. This can possibly suggest that it was the reaction of authority rather than the rebels which decreased the participation in the South West. This could be seen as possibly another reason why the yeoman started to become a lot less significant in rebellions after 1549, inferring that the 1549 rebellions played a minimal part in the changing nature of rebellion.
However the size and scale is not necessarily the biggest factor in reference to the turning point of the rebellions the social classes involved can also be a large factor in determining change in rebellion. The 1549 rebellions got profoundly close to a class war, Kett’s rebellion in particular was very close to becoming a class war, Imperato actually sees the rebellion as a direct turning point because of the tension felt by both classes during the rebellion, “historians point to...1549 as a turning point...protests were turned against the land owning gentry” . This is also supported by the fact that after the rebellions of 1549 the yeoman social class dropped in interest dramatically, showing that 1549 did play a key role in the changing nature of rebellion. However after the rebellions 8500 rebel lives were lost. This could have deterred rebels from rebelling again; suggesting it was the punishment rather than rebellion which acted as a hinge for change. Decreasing the extent to which the 1549 rebellions could be seen as a key turning point. However it can not be forgotten how close the rebellions became to class war and Fellows states that “the frightening lesson of 1549 was that those outside the magisterial class could get on very well without them” , reinforcing the key factor the 1549 rebellions played in the changing nature of rebellion. Yet the Yorkshire rebellion was one of the first rebellions in the period to directly have the lower classes acting as a vehicle for the rebellion, this is a key turning point as after the Yorkshire rebellion the yeoman were a major factor in why rebellions got so far, slightly decreasing the extent to which the rebellions of 1549 can be seen as a turning point, yet the fact still remains that the 1549 rebellions see an end to the use of yeoman as the key driving force.
Yet leaders had to manipulate the yeomen and devise methods, which also can be used to determine which rebellions played a key role in the changing nature of rebellion. It could be said that the 1549 rebellions change, as the rebellions were very violent, “violent revolts” as stated by James. Prior to 1549 many rebellions also held a strong correlation of violence within them, however after the rebellions of 1549 rebellions took a much more stable approach and incurred a less violence, like the rebellion of Lady Jane Grey, however there was the expectation of the Northern Earls. This clearly displays that 1549 had a large role to play in the change of methods used by rebels. The Mary Queen of Scott’s plots took a whole new approach by disguising their rebellion with coded messages. Change may have occurred however due to the reasons behind the rebellion, rather than that of the experiences from the 1549 rebellions. This could be because dynastic issues may have struggled to gain support in the Tudor period rather than compared with socio-economic issues during poor harvests. This information will remain unclear to us as their reasoning is unlikely to ever come to surface. Yet the Mary Queen of Scott’s plots, showed an element of change as the source of rebellion came from inside one of “Elizabeth’s ministers in charge of counter-espionage” as suggested by Lockyer. Furthermore a point regarding method, which does also seem to lead us away from believing that the 1549 rebellions were not a key turning point, was that the amicable grant had used a list of demands a long time before the rebellions of 1549, clearly showing to us that the amicable grant had much bigger part to play in the methods conducted by rebellions compared to that of the 1549 rebellions whom had imitated the methods from the amicable grant, slightly decreasing the extent to which 1549 can be viewed as a key turning point.
Yet on the other hand the rebellions of 1549 did pose quite a large threat and some people believe that these rebellions were the biggest factor in overthrowing Lord Protector Somerset. This could be however, the terrible organisational skills conducted by the protector, which allowed the rebellions to grow so large in the first place. This is supported by Arman, Bird and Wilkinson when they state “After the rebellion the nobles on the council lost their trust in Somerset, and overthrew him” . This does support that 1549 was a key turning point in the changing nature of change. However the rebellion did not quite match the threat summoned by Wyatt’s rebellion, which managed to get its rebels to the outskirts of London, which was very close to Elizabeth. Some historians like Imperato believe, “Wyatt came as close to anyone to overthrowing a Tudor monarch” , which dramatically subtracts the extent to which the 1549 rebellions can be viewed as a key turning point. However it is possible to suggest that no rebellions actually posed any real threat as the amicable grant was the only one to gain even some slight reconcile of success. But at best it was a hollow victory. This point is supported by Fellows who states, “Despite the limited forces available to the early modern state, most Tudor rebellions ended in failure and defeat” , inferring that no rebellion can be seen as a key turning point in the changing nature of rebellion because no rebellion ever posed a serious threat and hence never had a chance at success, decreasing the extent to which the 1549 rebellions can be viewed as a key role in the changing nature of Tudor rebellion.
The rebellions of 1549 did play a part in the changing nature of rebellion, and acted as a hinge for change, however the Tudors gradually tightened their grip over the once regionalised country; and this played a larger role than that of the 1549 rebellions. Even though the 1549 rebellions verged on the edge of a class war, it was the hierarchy above them that caused the numbers to fall and the socio-economic groups to change, and therefore played the largest role in the changing nature of rebellion against the Tudor monarch.