How far do you agree with the view that the rebellions of 1549 did not pose a political threat to the Tudor regime?
There are conflicting views over how politically threatening the rebellions of 1549 were. Guy puts forward the view that ‘the 1549 revolts were the closest thing Tudor England saw to a class war’ which is further supported by Fellows’ view in source 2 that ‘1549 saw two serious rebellions...which some historians believe brought England close to a class war.’ However, to contrast, David Rogerson, in source 3, states that ‘the rebellions of 1549 were not threatening in an overly political way’ which is directly opposing Guy and Fellows view of the rebellions almost causing a ‘class war’. Williams in source 1, claims that despite the ‘considerable degree of organisation’ in the 1549 rebellions, in both ‘there was very little violence’…and ‘they both ended in the same weakness’ which furthers the idea that the rebellions did not pose a political threat to the Tudor regime.
Guy puts forward the idea that ‘Somerset mishandled the revolts…he relied on pardons and proclamations’ which inevitably contributed to the posing threat of the 1549 rebellions and the ‘class war’ Guy and. This is particularly believable in that ‘mishandling’ can be seen in the Western Rebellion. Somerset reacted incredibly slowly to the protest which allowed the rebels to progress further around the country. Having sent Lord Russell to intervene with only a trivial and insufficient force, this could be seen as a mishandling due to weakness, which therefore would enable the rebellion to be significantly more threatening. However, theoretically what other choice did Somerset have? The efficient resources were being used to deal with conflict in other places around the country which therefore left Somerset with limited choice. Along with this, the rebels had already killed the Archdeacon of Cornwall, William Body meaning that Somerset may have felt some sort of defence was needed instead of risking further physical attack. Therefore this may not be ‘mishandling’ as Guy says, it could have been Somerset’s only realistic choice to avoid further riot.
Somerset, however did rely on pardons in the Ketts rebellion to finish it, yet the few times pardons were offered, for example on the 21st of July 1539, the rebels refused. This makes the government look weak and unauthorative as the rebels were refusing to acknowledge their wishes, but go against them instead. This can be seen as posing a threat, as the refusal to negotiate led to the rebels being able to capture Norwich enhancing their strength and control.
However, despite this, due to failure of support John Dudley, earl of Warwick defeated Kett at Dussindale on the 26th December 1539 so where on the surface it may have seemed threatening and close to a ‘class war’ the final outcome proves different.
P. Williams disagrees with the views of Guy and Fellows propose, instead he implies that the 1549 rebellions did not pose a significant threat to the tudor regime regardless of the supposed mishandling of the rebellions. Williams puts forward the argument that even though both rebellions has a ‘considerable degree of organisation’, the factor that caused the failure was the fact they had limited noble support which prevented them from having their arguments heard and acted upon. Undoubtedly, the rebellions had excellent leadership…in the Western Rebellion the leader, Humphrey Arundel, was an outstanding leader and had incredible structure. Likewise in Ketts rebellions, Kett refused to give in to the governments negotiations and continued marching his rebels. Yet, despite having the right organisation, as William states, the lack of noble support was the ultimate downfall. This can been seen from the Western Rebellion where the rebels had no noble support which is why Lord Russell and Sir Peter Carew were sent out to attempt to stop the rebels. This can be seen as posing a lower threat due to the government still asserting their authority over the rebels.

3. From David Rogerson et al. The Early Tudor Years England 1485-1558
The rebellions of 1549 were not threatening in an overtly political way. Their purpose was not to overthrow any member of the government or ruling family. In the case of Kett’s rebellion the rebels appealed to tradition and custom, not to a radical agenda. They remained disciplined and clear sighted about their objectives. In the Western Rebellion the rebels did have a more challenging religious agenda that rejected the government’s Protestant changes. Their articles were written more assertively and they did not display the kind of deference expected in the sixteenth century.
3. From David Rogerson et al. The Early Tudor Years England 1485-1558
The rebellions of 1549 were not threatening in an overtly political way. Their purpose was not to overthrow any member of the government or ruling family. In the case of Kett’s rebellion the rebels appealed to tradition and custom, not to a radical agenda. They remained disciplined and clear sighted about their objectives. In the Western Rebellion the rebels did have a more challenging religious agenda that rejected the government’s Protestant changes. Their articles were written more assertively and they did not display the kind of deference expected in the sixteenth century.