Historians have disagreed about whether there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ in the reigns of
Edward VI and Mary I. What is your view about whether there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ in
the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I?
With reference to three chosen works:
analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ.
explain the differences you have identified.
evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining
your judgements.
Students may choose to divide their assignment into sections or complete it as a continuous
essay, and should make use of supplementary reading as appropriate.
Whether or not there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ in the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I has
been a major source of dispute among historians due to the versatility of the term ‘crisis’ and
the conflict between the revisionist focus on the achievements of this period and the
traditional interpretation of its failures. Indeed, while the 1540s and 1550s saw factional
disputes, rapid religious reform and grave issues associated with both the economy and
society, it is also vital to appreciate the significant degree of continuity and stability during
this time. The chosen articles for this question each debate the responsibility of religious,
political, social and economic factors for precipitating a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’. Smith’s overall
interpretation in ‘The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England 1529-
1660’ presents a revisionist view that while there certainly was a disaster at the end of Mary’s
reign concerning social and economic conditions, to label this period as a ‘crisis’ is too
obscuring of the positive aspects of the previous years. Meanwhile, in ‘A Mid-Tudor Crisis?’,
Loach argues that such severe demographic issues did in fact constitute a ‘crisis’ which
overshadowed all contemporary concerns about politics or religion; taking a more
conventional approach, Bindoff mainly explores the political issues associated with the rule
of Somerset and Northumberland in his work ‘Tudor England’ and claims there was a crisis
in all aspects during Mary’s reign.
These arguments will be evaluated using a thematic approach and set against the
supplementary texts, ‘England under the Tudors’ by G.R. Elton and Matusiak’s ‘Mid-Tudor
England: Years of Trauma and Survival’, before reaching a judgement on the strength of their
conclusions and level of persuasiveness. This will be based on the following criteria: the
extent to which each historian’s claims can be corroborated with historical evidence, the
balance of the extracts and their acknowledgement of the overall debate. Additionally, a
conclusion will be reached on whether or not there truly was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’, which will
consider the collective impact of the political, religious, social and economic situations on
varying levels of society; the levels of support of, or indeed opposition to, the reigns of both
monarchs; and the success of their governments in dealing with any significant issues.
Overall, it can be argued that there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ for both the country and the
monarchs as the profound social and economic issues precipitated a demographic disaster,
with other factors such as war and religion worsening this situation; the high mortality rates
and series of bad harvests led to devastation across the country, whilst the monarchs’ inability
to combat such issues undermined the stability of their reigns. This view most strongly aligns
with the arguments and evidence provided by Loach, whose modern perspective allows them
to provide a convincing, balanced discussion of both the successes and failures of this period.
, The disturbance which arose from religious reforms and whether such rapid change amounted
to a ‘crisis’ is discussed by all historians. Bindoff praises the effective management of
religious change implemented between 1547-58, discussing “liturgical innovations” such as
the Order of the Communion in the reign of Edward and claiming that the “speed” and “air of
inevitability” of Mary’s restoration of Catholicism was “a measure of the monarch’s
singleness and strength of mind”. The historian Loach corroborates with this to an extent,
looking at Mary’s “personally generous” character and how this prompted the return of much
monastic property and the Church’s return to the first fruit and tenths. Indeed, the fact that
five out of the six Catholic bishops, such as the Bishop of Goldwell, who were appointed by
Mary later resigned in protest at Elizabeth’s policies clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of
her “generous” approach in evoking her country’s loyalty to the faith. However, while such
context suggests public compliance, a view which is similarly supported by Smith, the
religious reforms of the mid-Tudor period are seen by Bindoff to have produced a “doctrinal
hurricane” and “mounting uproar”, best exemplified by the Western Rebellion of 1549.
Indeed, he references contemporary reactions as the basis for his argument, discussing how
Somerset was considered a “promoter of heresy” by the public and the rebels called his
religious policy a “Christmas Game”, which begins to suggest a crisis due to the high degree
of popular opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, Loach stresses the
“predominantly religious” nature of the articles produced by the Western rebels, emphasising
the level of public discontent with the Protector’s policies and preference for a conservative
faith. Historical evidence also demonstrates the passive manner in which this resistance was
displayed. For example, in 1552, the parish of Morebath concealed their priest’s traditional
vestments from government officials rather than surrendering them as they had been ordered,
while the uprisings of 1549 saw more severe consequences, with government resources being
stretched to the limit and around 10,000 men losing their lives. However, it is also true that
these rebellions had limited aims and were dealt with successfully by Edward’s government,
raising the question of whether Mary’s reign saw greater issues regarding religion; this view
is debated by Smith.
While Smith acknowledges a range of successes regarding the return to Catholicism, such as
that “a few religious houses were restored” and “actions were brought against clergymen who
had married” during Edward’s Protestant reign, he accepts that the lack of genuine popular
enthusiasm for these reforms cannot be ignored. Indeed, he goes as far to say that Mary’s
actions, most significantly her persecution of heretics, actually had a counter effect and “gave
dignity to the Protestant cause”, with her government being unable to keep the “flood of
Protestant books and writings” out of England. This argument can be strengthened by the
failure of her government to effectively challenge the Protestant hold on the printing press, as
while sixty-four Catholic titles were published between 1554-58, this was no match for the
ninety-eight Protestant works also produced during this time; the index of forbidden writers
from 1555 onwards simply encouraged a core of committed Protestants, both in England and
on the continent, who were willing to challenge Mary’s Catholic policies. Both Loach and
Bindoff corroborate with his view, with the latter claiming that “nothing has done more harm
to Mary’s reputation” than her persecution of heretics; the fact that 274 Protestant activists
were executed during the last three years of Mary's reign clearly accounts for the public’s
“unthinking, ferocious and almost indelible hatred” (Bindoff). However, Loach warns
historians to refrain from allowing revulsion to cloud their judgement about the consequences
of this persecution, claiming that “there is little evidence to suggest that on-lookers were
repelled”; historical evidence even demonstrates noble support for such punishments, as seen
by the Earl of Derby’s assistance in hunting heretics, and therefore presents Loach’s
argument to be stronger than that of Bindoff, whose focus on the “horrible death” perhaps
Edward VI and Mary I. What is your view about whether there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ in
the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I?
With reference to three chosen works:
analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ.
explain the differences you have identified.
evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and explaining
your judgements.
Students may choose to divide their assignment into sections or complete it as a continuous
essay, and should make use of supplementary reading as appropriate.
Whether or not there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ in the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I has
been a major source of dispute among historians due to the versatility of the term ‘crisis’ and
the conflict between the revisionist focus on the achievements of this period and the
traditional interpretation of its failures. Indeed, while the 1540s and 1550s saw factional
disputes, rapid religious reform and grave issues associated with both the economy and
society, it is also vital to appreciate the significant degree of continuity and stability during
this time. The chosen articles for this question each debate the responsibility of religious,
political, social and economic factors for precipitating a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’. Smith’s overall
interpretation in ‘The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England 1529-
1660’ presents a revisionist view that while there certainly was a disaster at the end of Mary’s
reign concerning social and economic conditions, to label this period as a ‘crisis’ is too
obscuring of the positive aspects of the previous years. Meanwhile, in ‘A Mid-Tudor Crisis?’,
Loach argues that such severe demographic issues did in fact constitute a ‘crisis’ which
overshadowed all contemporary concerns about politics or religion; taking a more
conventional approach, Bindoff mainly explores the political issues associated with the rule
of Somerset and Northumberland in his work ‘Tudor England’ and claims there was a crisis
in all aspects during Mary’s reign.
These arguments will be evaluated using a thematic approach and set against the
supplementary texts, ‘England under the Tudors’ by G.R. Elton and Matusiak’s ‘Mid-Tudor
England: Years of Trauma and Survival’, before reaching a judgement on the strength of their
conclusions and level of persuasiveness. This will be based on the following criteria: the
extent to which each historian’s claims can be corroborated with historical evidence, the
balance of the extracts and their acknowledgement of the overall debate. Additionally, a
conclusion will be reached on whether or not there truly was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’, which will
consider the collective impact of the political, religious, social and economic situations on
varying levels of society; the levels of support of, or indeed opposition to, the reigns of both
monarchs; and the success of their governments in dealing with any significant issues.
Overall, it can be argued that there was a ‘Mid-Tudor Crisis’ for both the country and the
monarchs as the profound social and economic issues precipitated a demographic disaster,
with other factors such as war and religion worsening this situation; the high mortality rates
and series of bad harvests led to devastation across the country, whilst the monarchs’ inability
to combat such issues undermined the stability of their reigns. This view most strongly aligns
with the arguments and evidence provided by Loach, whose modern perspective allows them
to provide a convincing, balanced discussion of both the successes and failures of this period.
, The disturbance which arose from religious reforms and whether such rapid change amounted
to a ‘crisis’ is discussed by all historians. Bindoff praises the effective management of
religious change implemented between 1547-58, discussing “liturgical innovations” such as
the Order of the Communion in the reign of Edward and claiming that the “speed” and “air of
inevitability” of Mary’s restoration of Catholicism was “a measure of the monarch’s
singleness and strength of mind”. The historian Loach corroborates with this to an extent,
looking at Mary’s “personally generous” character and how this prompted the return of much
monastic property and the Church’s return to the first fruit and tenths. Indeed, the fact that
five out of the six Catholic bishops, such as the Bishop of Goldwell, who were appointed by
Mary later resigned in protest at Elizabeth’s policies clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of
her “generous” approach in evoking her country’s loyalty to the faith. However, while such
context suggests public compliance, a view which is similarly supported by Smith, the
religious reforms of the mid-Tudor period are seen by Bindoff to have produced a “doctrinal
hurricane” and “mounting uproar”, best exemplified by the Western Rebellion of 1549.
Indeed, he references contemporary reactions as the basis for his argument, discussing how
Somerset was considered a “promoter of heresy” by the public and the rebels called his
religious policy a “Christmas Game”, which begins to suggest a crisis due to the high degree
of popular opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, Loach stresses the
“predominantly religious” nature of the articles produced by the Western rebels, emphasising
the level of public discontent with the Protector’s policies and preference for a conservative
faith. Historical evidence also demonstrates the passive manner in which this resistance was
displayed. For example, in 1552, the parish of Morebath concealed their priest’s traditional
vestments from government officials rather than surrendering them as they had been ordered,
while the uprisings of 1549 saw more severe consequences, with government resources being
stretched to the limit and around 10,000 men losing their lives. However, it is also true that
these rebellions had limited aims and were dealt with successfully by Edward’s government,
raising the question of whether Mary’s reign saw greater issues regarding religion; this view
is debated by Smith.
While Smith acknowledges a range of successes regarding the return to Catholicism, such as
that “a few religious houses were restored” and “actions were brought against clergymen who
had married” during Edward’s Protestant reign, he accepts that the lack of genuine popular
enthusiasm for these reforms cannot be ignored. Indeed, he goes as far to say that Mary’s
actions, most significantly her persecution of heretics, actually had a counter effect and “gave
dignity to the Protestant cause”, with her government being unable to keep the “flood of
Protestant books and writings” out of England. This argument can be strengthened by the
failure of her government to effectively challenge the Protestant hold on the printing press, as
while sixty-four Catholic titles were published between 1554-58, this was no match for the
ninety-eight Protestant works also produced during this time; the index of forbidden writers
from 1555 onwards simply encouraged a core of committed Protestants, both in England and
on the continent, who were willing to challenge Mary’s Catholic policies. Both Loach and
Bindoff corroborate with his view, with the latter claiming that “nothing has done more harm
to Mary’s reputation” than her persecution of heretics; the fact that 274 Protestant activists
were executed during the last three years of Mary's reign clearly accounts for the public’s
“unthinking, ferocious and almost indelible hatred” (Bindoff). However, Loach warns
historians to refrain from allowing revulsion to cloud their judgement about the consequences
of this persecution, claiming that “there is little evidence to suggest that on-lookers were
repelled”; historical evidence even demonstrates noble support for such punishments, as seen
by the Earl of Derby’s assistance in hunting heretics, and therefore presents Loach’s
argument to be stronger than that of Bindoff, whose focus on the “horrible death” perhaps
