The Nature and Threat of Popular Risings, 1536-69 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Nature and Threat of Popular Risings, 1536-69

Introduction

Popular risings during the mid-Tudor period posed significant challenges to royal authority. Between 1536 and 1569, England experienced several major rebellions that tested the government's ability to maintain control. These rebellions varied in their causes, involving religious grievances, economic hardship, and political opposition. Understanding their nature and the threat they posed is essential for assessing the stability of Tudor government during this period.

The Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536

Causes of the rebellions

The rebellions that erupted in Lincolnshire and the north of England during 1536 were triggered by the rapid and radical changes imposed by Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell in 1535-36. These changes centred on religious reform and government intervention in local affairs.

The Lincolnshire Rising

The trigger for the Lincolnshire Rising was the presence of three sets of government commissioners in the region simultaneously. These commissioners were overseeing the dissolution of the smaller monasteries, collecting the 1534 subsidy (a peacetime tax that broke with tradition), and assessing the educational standards of the clergy. Such concentrated government intervention created tension and fuelled rumours among the local population.

The spark came on 2 October 1536, when the Bishop of Lincoln's official arrived at Louth to carry out a visitation of the clergy. Angry locals seized the official, forced him to swear loyalty to them, and burned his papers in defiance of government interference. The men of Louth then marched to the nearby Legbourne nunnery and captured the commissioners who were there to dissolve it. By the following day, 3,000 people had gathered at Louth, and the government commissioners who had planned to negotiate were forced to flee.

The rebel petition drawn up on 9 October reveals their main grievances:

• The dissolution of the smaller monasteries
• The 'evil counsel' Henry was receiving from men of 'low birth' such as Cromwell and Chancellor Richard Rich
• The promotion of reformers with Protestant sympathies, such as Archbishop Cranmer
• The Act of Uses (1535), which affected the gentry
• The 1534 subsidy and the inability of Lincolnshire people to pay it

The Pilgrimage of Grace

The larger and more serious Pilgrimage of Grace also stemmed from opposition to the dissolution of smaller monasteries and religious reform. Historian Michael Bush has revealed genuine popular anger about the dissolution. The rebels attempted to restore 16 of the 95 monasteries that had been suppressed. They feared the social and economic consequences of dissolution, particularly the impact on the poor who relied on alms provided by monasteries, as the pilgrims' ballads circulating in 1536 suggest:

Alack! Alack!
For the church sake
Poor commons wake,
And no marvel!
For clear it is
The decay of this
How the pore shall miss
No tongue can tell

The Pontefract Articles (the rebels' demands) also complained about wider social and economic concerns:

• Enclosure of common land
• Unfair rises in rent imposed by landlords
• Corrupt activities of local officials
• Remission from the 1534 subsidy, which had hit the impoverished north particularly hard
• Government attacks on traditional Church privileges such as benefit of clergy

The leader, Robert Aske, an educated lawyer, articulated the rebels' fears clearly and encouraged the idea that the rebellion was a traditional 'pilgrimage'. The rebels demanded:

• An end to the heresies of Luther and other Protestant thinkers
• Restoration of the powers of the pope
• Reversal of the dissolution of smaller monasteries

Significance of gentry involvement

How serious were the rebellions of 1536?

The Lincolnshire Rising

The Lincolnshire Rising was potentially serious because local gentry became involved. As the rebellion gathered momentum, numbers swelled to 10,000 and the rebels marched on Lincoln as members of the local nobility such as Lord Hussey fled. Local clergy also became involved, including some monks.

However, Henry VIII took swift and decisive action. He threatened the rebels with harsh punishment if they did not disperse, backed by a royal army led by the Duke of Suffolk which quickly marched to Lincolnshire. When a herald arrived on 11 October, he persuaded the rebels to go home. While their actions had been mostly peaceful up to that point, fighting the royal army would have constituted treason. As a result of the government's decisive action, battle was avoided and the Lincolnshire rebellion collapsed in less than two weeks.

The rebellion's rapid spread and widespread support from all sections of society showed it was a potential threat. The government was able to deal with it quickly because, at this stage, only Lincolnshire rebels had risen - the Yorkshire rebels had sent a message saying they were not yet ready. The relative ease of suppression may have lulled Henry into a false sense of security; on 19 October he disbanded a second army he had sent north, leaving the Duke of Suffolk to finish suppressing the trouble alone.

The Pilgrimage of Grace

The Pilgrimage of Grace, which began on 10 October in the East Riding of Yorkshire, was far more serious. It was closely connected to events in Lincolnshire, with representatives communicating as early as 2 October, and Robert Aske had been involved in the Lincolnshire risings.

The scale and extent of the rebellion made it extremely threatening:

• By 16 October, the rebellion in the East Riding had attracted 10,000 followers
• Rebels took over the city of York on 16 October
• On 19 October, rebels captured the port of Hull and Pontefract Castle
• Lord Darcy, who had been trying to defend Pontefract, did little to stop the rebels and was eventually persuaded to join them
• The North Riding of Yorkshire also rose up, with support from Lord Latimer and Sir Christopher Derby
• Rebels captured Barnard's Castle before meeting up with Aske's rebels at York
• Rebels were mustering in Westmorland and Cumberland
• By late October, there were nine well-armed and organised rebel hosts (armies), many converging on York
• The geographical extent covered most of the north and north-east of England
• The rebel army was 20,000 strong and included well-trained fighters with recent military experience in the wars against Scotland

How did the government suppress the Pilgrimage of Grace?

The government faced serious challenges in suppressing the Pilgrimage of Grace:

• Henry's military resources were overstretched
• The Duke of Suffolk was still restoring order in Lincolnshire
• Henry had sent a second army home
• The rebels had three weeks to gather and prepare a strategy
• Many northern gentry had joined the rebellion, removing the usual local force for maintaining order

Eventually, on 23 October, the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury marched north with an army of about 8,000 men. Because they were so outnumbered by the rebels (20,000 to 8,000), they had little choice but to negotiate.

Negotiations and deception

Norfolk sent a letter to the rebels asking for a meeting. Aske agreed, and the meeting took place on 27 October. At this meeting:

• The rebels presented a list of five articles
• It was agreed that two representatives would take these to the king
• A truce would be called

When Henry was presented with the rebel articles, his initial response was to write an angry reply. However, Norfolk persuaded him that it would be better to offer the rebels further negotiations, hoping that the longer these were extended, the more momentum the rebellion would lose.

The rebels accepted the king's offer and drew up a second set of 24 complaints to give to Norfolk. The second meeting between Norfolk and the rebels took place at Doncaster on 6 December, when:

• Rebels asked for the king's pardon, which Norfolk granted
• Norfolk promised a parliament
• Further negotiations were promised on the fate of the monasteries

When news of the king's pardon reached the rebel camp on 8 December, many rebels started going home, as Norfolk had hoped.

Punishment and repression

However, Henry had no intention of keeping his side of the agreement. Gradually, some former rebels began to realise that Henry had tricked them. In January 1537, there were renewed risings:

• Sir Francis Bigod and former pilgrim John Hallam briefly captured Beverley (East Yorkshire)
• Renewed unrest in the West Riding of Yorkshire, Cumberland and Westmorland was put down near Carlisle

This unrest gave Henry the excuse he needed to punish the rebels. At least 144 people were executed, including the gentry and noble leaders such as:

• Robert Aske
• Sir Thomas Percy
• Sir Francis Bigod
• Lord Hussey

Longer-term response

As a longer-term response, Henry reorganised the Council of the North to strengthen royal control in the region. Resentment of his policies continued in the north, however. In 1541, there was a plot to kill the president of the Council of the North and capture Pontefract Castle, but this was quickly discovered and put down by the Council itself. Henry had learned his lesson regarding the management of the north, and there would not be another rebellion there until 1569.

The Western Rising, 1549

Context: the 'commotion time'

The Western Rising was part of a wider crisis in Tudor government in 1549, known as the 'commotion time'. This period also included Kett's Rebellion in East Anglia and wider unrest in 25 counties. These rebellions were so serious for the government because they stretched resources to the limit, occurring simultaneously across different regions.

Causes of the Western Rising

The Western Rising resulted from tensions that had been building in Cornwall since at least 1547. These tensions were caused by:

• Government intrusion into the county
• Resentment over religious reforms being imposed

Building tensions, 1547-48

The government was represented by William Body, who was closely connected to Cromwell. In 1547, Body summoned the clergy to hear the new injunctions, only to be met with demonstrations. At the same time, government commissioners were surveying the chantries, creating even more tension.

In 1548, when Body returned to oversee government orders that all images in churches be destroyed, a mob led by a parish priest attacked and killed him. This violent response demonstrated the depth of feeling against religious reforms.

The spark: the new prayer book, 1549

The spark for the serious rebellion that followed in 1549 was news that the new prayer book was to be enforced. In Cornwall, this led to a rebellion that:

• Began in Bodmin
• Attracted the support of a gentleman, Humphrey Arundel
• By 6 June, the Cornish rebels had formed a camp at Bodmin

At the same time, there was a rising in Devon following a service using the new prayer book. This rising:

• Began at Sampford Courtenay
• Quickly spread through the county
• By 20 June, the Cornish rebels had joined up with the Devon rebels in the town of Crediton

Religious grievances

The set of articles produced by the rebels reveals their concerns about religious change. They wanted:

• A return to the Six Articles (1539) (Henry VIII's conservative religious settlement)
• The Mass to be celebrated in Latin (not English)
• The Eucharist to be of one kind, not two (denying the laity the chalice)
• Images restored in churches
• Prayer for souls in purgatory
• The recall of the English Bible and prayer book
• Partial restoration of the monasteries and chantries

Social and economic grievances

There was also a social and economic element to the rebellion:

• The Duke of Somerset had ordered a new tax on sheep and woollen cloth, which would have hit Devon particularly hard as the economy of that county was based on sheep farming
• Rumours circulated about plans for other new taxes on geese and pigs

These complaints appeared in earlier versions of the rebels' articles but were omitted from the final version, which was shaped by clergy who became involved in the rebellion, such as Robert Welsh, a parish priest from Exeter. However, the initial motivation for the risings and the rebels' early actions show that the clergy represented the popular anger against religious change accurately.

By early July, the seriousness of the rebellion was clear when 2,000 rebels besieged Exeter.

Challenges faced by Edward's government in suppressing the Western Rising

The government faced several serious challenges in suppressing the Western Rising:

Communication and geography

One problem was that the remoteness of the region hampered communications with local gentry and led to delays and misunderstandings. The West Country was far from London and difficult to reach quickly, making it hard for the government to coordinate an effective response.

Lack of military resources

Lord John Russell, a major landowner in Devon (thanks to the dissolution of the monasteries), was sent by the Duke of Somerset to deal with the rebellion. However, Somerset was unaware that the Cornish and Devon forces had united, and could only provide Russell with a very small army because of:

• Riots in the Midlands
• Kett's Rebellion in East Anglia
• Fears of a French invasion

These problems meant that Somerset did not act properly to suppress the rebellion until 10 July, when he gave Russell more troops. But Russell's army of about 1,700 men was still outnumbered by the rebels.

The siege of Exeter

Russell was not able to lift the siege of Exeter until 3 August, when he received help from Lord Grey, who arrived with reinforcements including 300 Italian mercenaries. By this time the number of rebels had swelled to about 6,000. Some 300 were killed in the lifting of the siege, but many more fled and re-established their camp at Sampford Courtenay.

Threat of foreign intervention

By now, France had declared war on England and there was a possible threat of French intervention on behalf of the rebels, adding to the government's concerns.

Final suppression

It took Russell until 16 August to gather enough men and supplies to deal with the rebels once and for all. The royal army defeated the rebels at Sampford Courtenay, and it is estimated that about 4,000 rebels were killed.

Assessment of threat

The Western Rebellion posed a threat in several ways:

• The inability of government forces to deal with it effectively allowed it to grow
• It took a sizeable royal army to suppress it
• It occurred simultaneously with other rebellions, stretching government resources dangerously
• There was a threat of foreign (French) intervention

Kett's Rebellion, 1549

Causes of Kett's Rebellion

Kett's Rebellion was centred around the important town of Norwich, but historians have shown that it was far bigger than one camp of rebels. Trouble had been brewing in the Norfolk area since at least 1548.

Economic inequality and corruption

Norwich itself was a rich town, but the distribution of wealth was extremely unequal:

• About 6 percent of the population owned 60 percent of the land and goods
• The gap between rich and poor was widened by the abuses of local government officials
• John Flowerdew had begun enclosing common land, depriving ordinary people of their rights

Enclosure and the emergence of Robert Kett

Riots against illegal enclosure of common land broke out in May 1549 and spread quickly through Essex and Norfolk in early July, with angry villagers uprooting hedges.

A leader soon emerged in Robert Kett, who was a tanner by trade but was also wealthy enough to own land in Wymondham, Norfolk. Kett himself had enclosed some common land, but when confronted by the rebels, he agreed that his actions were illegal and that he would return the land. This won him the trust and leadership of the rebels.

Rebel demands and government encouragement

The demands of the rebels were particularly worrying for the government because they came dangerously close to class warfare and emphasized popular anger against gentry wealth and privilege. The rebels complained about:

• The corruption of local government officials such as John Flowerdew, who used their office for personal gain
• Illegal enclosures
• Rack-renting (unfair increases in rent)

The rebels' anger was stirred up further by the actions of Somerset, who in 1548 had begun to investigate illegal enclosures. Somerset made the situation worse by making promises of reform to the rebels. He even sent out a new commission of enquiry into enclosure in early July, which gave the commissioners the power to act as well as inquire. Somerset's actions did not pacify the rebels; they only encouraged them to continue.

Actions demonstrating strength of feeling

The actions of the rebels show the strength of feeling against the local gentry:

• Kett set up a 'commonwealth', an alternative form of government, which raised money and collected food and supplies in the king's name
• Kett's commonwealth was a direct challenge to the power of the local gentry and might even have challenged the national government as an 'alternative' source of power and authority
• There were attacks on the property of unpopular members of the gentry such as Flowerdew

Religious stance

Unlike the West Country rebels, Kett's rebels actively supported the government's religious policies. They even demanded the dismissal of priests who could not preach properly, to be replaced with those who could. The rebels also used the new English prayer book at their daily services in the Mousehold Heath camp.

Ironically for the government, which had introduced these religious reforms in the first place, the rebels were inspired to take them further than had been intended. This posed a threat to the power and stability of the Church and the national government.

How did the government respond to Kett's Rebellion?

The march on Norwich

Kett decided to march on Norwich, which at this time was the second-largest city in England. By 12 July, the rebels had set up a camp at Mousehold Heath outside the city walls, which was estimated to have attracted 16,000 people. Other camps were also set up at Downham Market (Norfolk) and Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk). The rebellion spread well beyond East Anglia to Kent, and there was trouble in Surrey and Sussex.

Weakness in local authority

Ironically, many of the local gentry were not present when the rebellion began because they had been summoned to Windsor on 1 July to form an army to deal with the Western Rising. Those who were left behind were overwhelmed by the sheer scale and speed of the rising.

Failed negotiations and first attempt at suppression

Initially, the government offered a truce, but this failed. On 22 July, the rebels attacked and overran Norwich. William Parr, Marquess of Northampton, was sent with an armed force. His offer of a pardon led to just 20 rebels giving themselves up, and his attack on Norwich on 31 July failed completely.

Final suppression

The government was forced to raise more troops under the command of the Earl of Warwick. This new force of about 12,000 men reached Norwich on 23 August and a stand-off between Warwick and the rebels began. But it was not until the arrival of 1,000 mercenaries on 26 August that the leadership of Kett started to waver as his supply lines were cut off.

The rebels moved to Dussindale where they were attacked by Warwick's horsemen and professional soldiers. Kett was captured and up to 3,000 of the rebels were killed. Kett himself was executed for treason in November 1549.

Assessment of threat

Once again, it had taken the government a considerable amount of time and military might to put down rebels who were determined and organised. The severity of the situation was made worse because:

• Many risings happened across such a wide geographical area at the same time, stretching government resources dangerously
• There was a power vacuum in the region because the dominant noble family (the Howards in East Anglia) had been destroyed in the last years of Henry VIII's reign
• The rebels' 'commonwealth' represented an alternative authority that directly challenged royal government
• The rebellion occurred in proximity to one of England's most important cities (Norwich)

Wyatt's Rebellion, 1554

Why did Sir Thomas Wyatt rebel in 1554?

Wyatt's Rebellion of 1554 was very different from the popular rebellions of 1536 and 1549. The 1554 rebellion began as a plot at court by men who were concerned about Mary I's proposed marriage to Philip of Spain instead of the English candidate, Edward Courtenay.

The plotters and their concerns

The main plotters were all Protestant and included:

• Sir Peter Carew (the Devon gentleman who had failed to put down the 1549 Western Rising)
• Henry Grey (the Duke of Suffolk and father of Lady Jane Grey)
• Sir Thomas Wyatt (an influential member of the Kentish gentry)

They feared that:

• The marriage would lead to England becoming a Spanish satellite state
• England would be dragged into Spanish wars
• Foreign interference threatened English independence
• Mary planned to restore Catholicism, which for Protestants like Wyatt and Suffolk represented a serious threat

The conspiracy

Their initial plan was to persuade the Protestant Princess Elizabeth to marry Courtenay and to place them on the throne instead of Mary, with the support of the Council. However, the Council backed Mary's decision to marry Philip, so the conspirators began to plot what they hoped would be a national uprising.

The idea was for the rebels to lead simultaneous risings from the west, Midlands and Kent. However, news of their plot got out. The imperial ambassador Simon Renard informed the queen, and Courtenay was easily persuaded to admit what he knew.

The planned rebellions failed except in Kent, a county in which Protestant sympathies were strong, where Wyatt was able to gain a considerable armed following very quickly.

Why was Wyatt's rising a threat to Mary's government?

Methods and support

Wyatt used anti-Spanish propaganda to attract supporters, but he concealed his ultimate plan, which was to depose Mary. Wyatt was successful in his methods:

• He took up arms on 25 January 1554
• By 28 January he had attracted about 3,000 supporters

Difficulties in raising an army

To make matters worse, the government was finding it difficult to raise an army, especially because there was considerable sympathy for Wyatt's views. When the 80-year-old Duke of Norfolk arrived at Gravesend with 500 Londoners, he found that they deserted him for the rebels, and Norfolk was forced to retreat to the safety of the Tower of London.

Proximity to London

Wyatt's Rebellion also posed another threat. Its proximity to London meant that there was a danger that the capital city with all of its institutions of government could be captured, not to mention the queen herself.

Mary's response

Twice the queen offered to negotiate, but these offers were rejected by the rebels. At this point, Mary took matters into her own hands:

• She made a speech at London's Guildhall to rally the crowds behind her
• She refused to leave London or even move to Windsor or the Tower where the defences were strong
• Instead, she insisted on staying at the Palace of Westminster

The rebels' march on London

Between 3 and 6 February, Wyatt and his men tried to enter London, but initially they found the defences barred against them. However, the rebels were encouraged by the ambivalent attitude of the Londoners; some Londoners stood back and let Wyatt pass.

Londoners did not turn decisively against Wyatt until he and his depleted army reached Ludgate, which was locked. At this point, the Earl of Pembroke was able to capture the remaining rebels, bringing the revolt to an end.

Consequences and punishment

The involvement of members of the court, Suffolk and Wyatt, was a threat to Mary because they were powerful leaders of local and national politics. Courtenay and Elizabeth were both imprisoned in the Tower on suspicion of involvement in the plot. Elizabeth had probably been in touch with the conspirators, but there was no firm evidence that she or Courtenay had been directly involved in the plot, so neither was charged. Mary's government was still suspicious of them, however:

• Elizabeth was placed under house arrest
• Courtenay was exiled

The most important victims of the rebellion were two people who had played no part in it:

• Lady Jane Grey and her husband, Guildford Dudley, were both executed on 12 February 1554

Assessment of threat

Wyatt's Rebellion was serious because:

• Although relatively brief, it exposed the problems facing Mary in restoring Catholicism through her Spanish marriage
• It revealed that some members of her court could not be trusted
• Wyatt and his men got very close to capturing Westminster — at one point they reached Hyde Park, which is only a short distance from Westminster
• It demonstrated sympathy for Protestant and anti-Spanish views, even among government forces

However, the threat was limited because:

• Mary's leadership and the loyalty felt towards her was enough to put down the rebellion
• The rebels' poor planning played a part in their failure
• Not all of the planned rebellions happened as intended

If all of the rebellions had happened as planned, Mary might have been facing a much more serious crisis.

The Revolt of the Northern Earls, 1569-70

Why was there a rising led by the northern earls in 1569-70?

The revolt in the north in 1569 was the last serious revolt in the Tudor period. The rebellion was partly the result of the arrival and imprisonment of the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, in England in 1568.

Mary, Queen of Scots as a figurehead

Mary's presence meant that she was a potential figurehead for any Catholics who wanted to restore their religion by putting Mary on the throne. Among those who were sympathetic to Mary were two Catholic noblemen from the north:

• Thomas Percy (Earl of Northumberland)
• Charles Neville (Earl of Westmorland)

Political and religious grievances

These noblemen felt alienated from court not only because of religious policy but also because:

• Elizabeth had promoted her Protestant nobility into positions normally held by the Percys and Nevilles
• For example, Elizabeth's cousin, Lord Hunsdon, had been put in charge of the Eastern March
• The north in general still had strong Catholic sympathies (William Cecil estimated that in 1566 two-thirds of the northern JPs were Catholic)

Surviving Catholic sympathy in the north helped to bring about popular rebellion. Meanwhile, Mary herself was encouraging her supporters in her letters and was in contact with both Northumberland and the pope.

The Norfolk marriage plot

One solution to the problem of what to do with Mary was for her to marry the leading member of the English nobility, the Duke of Norfolk. Supporters of this idea at court thought that this alliance would secure the English succession and control Mary through marriage to someone who was at least nominally Protestant.

However, Elizabeth was not prepared to consider this option and began to suspect Norfolk of being involved in a plot against her. Norfolk was not only powerful, he was also the brother-in-law of Westmorland.

Norfolk left court on 26 September but did not go to the north, remaining instead at his manor of Kenninghall, in Norfolk, while he decided what to do. On 1 October, he wrote to Westmorland telling him not to rebel. Norfolk then surrendered himself to the queen.

Forced into rebellion

Although Norfolk had surrendered, rumours of a potential revolt were still circulating. Elizabeth remained suspicious of Westmorland and Northumberland and summoned them to court. This forced the earls into open rebellion on 9 November, although Westmorland was more enthusiastic than Northumberland, who had to be persuaded to act by some of his supporters.

To what extent did the Revolt of the Northern Earls pose a threat to Elizabeth?

The rebellion develops

On 14 November, the earls marched to Durham Cathedral where they celebrated Catholic Mass, symbolically rejecting Elizabeth's Protestant settlement. By 22 November, the rebels had marched to Bramham Moor; by this time they had attracted around:

• 3,800 foot soldiers
• 1,600 horsemen (particularly threatening as the rebels were well-equipped)

Difficulties for loyal officials

Officials who remained loyal to the queen found it difficult to act:

• Sir George Bowes had to defend Barnard's Castle in County Durham from the rebels
• By the first week in December he was under siege from nearly 5,000 rebels
• Bowes' own men began to change sides and eventually handed him over to the rebels
• The Earl of Sussex, as president of the Council of the North, was trapped in York with only 400 horsemen
• The rebels controlled so much of the north that Sussex stopped sending letters to London because he feared they would fall into the wrong hands

The rebels even managed to capture the port of Hartlepool, hoping that the Spanish King Philip II would send troops to help them, though this hope turned out to be false because Philip did nothing.

As Sir Ralph Sadler wrote to William Cecil from York on 6 December 1569:

I perceive her Majesty is to believe that the force of her subjects of this country should not increase, and be able to match with the rebels; but it is easy to find the cause. There are not ten gentlemen in all this country that favour her proceedings in the cause of religion. The common people are ignorant, superstitious, and altogether blinded with the old popish doctrine, and therefore so favour the cause which the rebels make the colour of their rebellion, that, though their persons be here with us, their hearts are with them.

Collapse of the rebellion

Despite the rebels' apparent strength, their rebellion began to collapse. Instead of marching further south from Bramham Moor in an attempt to release Mary from prison, they turned back on 24 November. It is unclear why the rebels changed their minds, but it might have been because they had heard that the government had moved Mary from Tutbury Castle and she was out of their reach.

As the rebels retreated, some began to leave, but it was not until 16 December, when a royal army of 10,000 men was approaching, that the rebel earls disbanded their army and fled:

• Northumberland fled over the border into Scotland; he was handed over by the Scottish authorities in 1572 and beheaded
• Westmorland remained in exile abroad
• Eight other leaders of the rebellion who were captured were executed

Why the rebellion failed

The rebellion failed partly because:

• It lacked coordination
• The rebels themselves were never fully clear about what they were trying to achieve
• They lacked support from other members of the conservative northern nobility and gentry (for example, Henry Lord Clifford supported Mary, but he was not prepared to join the rebellion)
• The foreign intervention they hoped for did not materialise

Philip of Spain was reluctant to help Mary because she had too many connections with France, who was his enemy. Helping Mary to become queen of England would have strengthened French power, particularly in the English Channel. The rebels also hoped that Scottish supporters of Mary might invade from the north, but this was prevented by the pro-English regent of Scotland.

Elizabeth's reaction

However, Elizabeth herself clearly saw the rebellion as a threat because she ordered that 800 rank and file rebels should be executed. Even if not all of these executions were carried out, Elizabeth's reaction showed that, in a climate of increasing political instability, the Northern Revolt was a threat to her position as queen.

How serious was the threat posed by popular rebellions, 1536-70?

Arguments for serious threat

Undoubtedly, popular rebellions posed a considerable threat to the Tudor regime for several reasons:

Scale and numbers

The sheer numbers involved in 1536, 1549 and 1569 caused problems because:

• Local authorities struggled to suppress them
• Even royal armies found them difficult to defeat
• Governments often resorted to negotiation instead of military force

Geographical challenges

The geographical location of the rebellions made it harder for the authorities to act:

• The rebellions of 1536, 1549 and 1569 took place in the north and west
• These regions were hard to reach and hard to communicate with
• Their remoteness from the centre of government meant both the north and west remained religiously conservative
• This made them a continuing challenge to government policies

Involvement of gentry and nobility

The situation was made worse in 1536 and 1569 because the very people who were supposed to suppress the rebellions - the nobility and gentry - joined in instead. This added:

• Leadership and organization to the rebellions
• Military experience and resources
• Legitimacy to the rebels' cause

Duration and persistence

The length of time these rebellions lasted shows how difficult it was for the government to act against them. Because communications between the monarch in London and these regions took so long, events often overtook government attempts to react, as happened in the Western Rebellion in 1549.

Proximity to centres of power

Even rebellions in more accessible regions posed threats:

• Kett's Rebellion threatened Norwich, the second-largest city in England
• Wyatt's Rebellion got very close to the heart of government at Westminster (reaching Hyde Park)

Limits to the threat

However, there were limits to the extent of the threat posed by popular rebellion:

No challenge to monarchy itself

None of the rebels openly claimed that they wanted an end to the monarchy. Tudor propaganda was very effective in imposing the acceptance of a social hierarchy, which meant that getting rid of the monarchy was unthinkable.

Challenges to specific monarchs

Only two rebellions came close to challenging the right of specific monarchs to rule:

• Wyatt's Rebellion in 1554 (aimed at preventing Mary's Spanish marriage and possibly deposing her)
• The Northern Earls' Revolt in 1569 (aimed at replacing Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots)

However, even these rebellions were eventually defeated by the government.

Government success in suppression

Ultimately, the government was always able to:

• Play on the natural sense of loyalty and obedience among the people to persuade them to disperse
• Rely on enough of the nobility and gentry remaining loyal to ensure continuing support for the Tudor monarchs
• Deploy professional armed soldiers who were superior to the amateur and poorly equipped rebels

Negotiation and promises

Where fighting was not an option, as in 1536, the government could:

• Play for time and negotiate
• Make promises (which they did not always keep)
• Trust that the promises of a monarch would be enough to pacify the rebels

Why was there a decline in popular resistance in the years 1570-88?

After the Northern Revolt, there were no more large-scale popular rebellions in England and Wales in the period 1570-88. Although there were several Catholic plots and smaller disturbances and riots, none of them reached the scale of the earlier Tudor rebellions.

Propaganda and cult of Elizabeth

Elizabeth I was adept at using propaganda to present herself as the champion of English Protestantism against the invasion of foreign Catholic powers who posed a threat to English independence.

Events reinforcing anti-Catholic sentiment

Events such as the following helped to reinforce fear of Catholicism and promote loyalty to Elizabeth as the defender of the realm:

• The St Bartholomew's Day massacre in France (1572), in which Protestants were killed by Catholics
• The assassination of the Protestant leader of the Dutch revolt, William of Orange (1584), by a Catholic

The 'Gloriana' cult

The combination of propaganda and events abroad played on increasing feelings of English nationalism and pride. Elizabeth's propaganda also:

• Emphasized that all subjects should be obedient to her
• Promoted the growth of the 'Gloriana' cult surrounding Elizabeth
• Used celebrations such as Elizabeth's 'Accession Day' to reinforce her popular appeal and promote loyalty

At the same time, those who appeared to support Mary, Queen of Scots or Catholicism were presented as dangerous traitors.

Catholic loyalty to England

The result of this propaganda was that most Catholics saw themselves as English first and Catholic second. They preferred to support Elizabeth and England rather than the foreign powers who were trying to assassinate her.

This helps to explain why:

• Catholic plots were carried out by a Catholic minority and did not lead to another popular rebellion as had happened in 1569
• In 1588, there was no Catholic uprising in support of the Spanish Armada

Limited nature of Catholic plots

After the popular rising in the north in 1569, the plots against the queen did not progress further than the planning stage. The leaders of the plots were a minority of nobility and gentry such as:

• The Duke of Norfolk (1571) - the Ridolfi Plot
• Sir Francis Throckmorton (1583) - the Throckmorton Plot
• Sir Anthony Babington (1586) - the Babington Plot

None of these plots gained wider support.

Role of espionage

In each case, Francis Walsingham's spy network helped to implicate and catch the plotters before they could get very far with their plans. When they were caught, they were tortured and punished, serving as a warning to others.

Harsh punishments

Increasingly harsh punishments for those who did rebel also played their part in encouraging loyalty and obedience:

• Elizabeth sent out a stern message in 1569-70 in her punishment of the rebels (ordering 800 executions)
• From 1571, parliament passed increasingly severe Acts against those who:
  • Missed Church services
  • Held private Masses
  • Aided priests
  • Owned a copy of the bull excommunicating Elizabeth

These measures created a climate of fear that discouraged potential rebels.

Remember!