(4,500 words minus footnotes and appendix)
“Political discontent was the main cause of the Tudor Rebellions”. How far do you agree?
Following the Wars of the Roses, the century of Tudor rule was a critical period – from
the installation of a new dynasty in 1485 to the changes brought about by the Reformation
during the 1530s. Numerous rebellions saw either bursts of regional discontent (like the
1497 Cornish Rising), or elaborate conspiracies, such as the Northern Rebellion of 1569.
Whilst some historians argue that economic or religious discontent were key causes of
Tudor rebellions, it would be more credible to argue that political discontent was the
motivation behind many of these uprisings, characterized by dynastic power struggles
under Henry VII but shifting to become criticisms of “evil advisors”, motivated by
jealousy of low-born advisors with considerable power.
Political discontent was the motive behind most Tudor rebellions; whether dynastic or
attacks on advisors. This was most pronounced in the dynastic rebellions which plagued
Henry VII – namely, the pretenders Simnel and Warbeck; the former’s identity changed
from Richard of York to Edward, Earl of Warwick whilst Warbeck claimed he was
Richard of York. In both instances, their foreign support (Warbeck was supported by
Margaret, Charles VIII of France and the Holy Roman Emperor) indicates that these
rebellions were attempts to supplant the fledgling Tudor dynasty with one amenable to
foreign interests – which Henry VII was clearly not, evidenced by his defence of Brittany
against France in the 1490s – and one with the Yorkist roots still embedded in northern
England. This influenced Margaret of Burgundy’s support (the aunt of the Princes in the
Tower), most notably when she sent 2,000 mercenaries to aid Simnel. During Elizabeth’s
reign, the Northern Rebellion in 1569 began as another dynastic plot, a foolish gamble
incited by the Duke of Norfolk (who hoped to marry Mary Queen of Scots to produce an
heir and supplant the Tudor dynasty), but developed into a desperate attempt by earls
Westmorland and Northumberland to gain power because of their dissatisfaction with
how the north had been politically marginalised. G.R. Elton emphasises how “The heads
of these houses had special grievances whose character may be illustrated by the fact that
Northumberland resented his loss of a valuable copper mine to the queen.”1 The Northern
Rebellion also displayed hatred of “evil advisors” as Norfolk led an anti-Cecil faction. He
despised William Cecil’s dominance of the privy council and thought that his actions, such
as impounding Spanish ships in 1568, risked war. This dislike of the Cecils was repeated
in the Essex Rebellion of 1601. When rallying men to his cause, Essex characterised his
actions as a crusade to save Elizabeth from the clutches of the corrupt Robert Cecil. Earlier
rebellions, like Wyatt’s, were portrayed as attempts to save a monarch; in this case, a
1
Elton, G.R., 2015. England under the Tudors. Routledge.,
, marriage with Philip of Spain. Wyatt’s appeal to the English was: “We seek no harm to
the Queen, but better counsel and councillors.”2 This had entirely political motives, with
Wyatt employing anti-Spanish xenophobia out of fear that England would become a
satellite state. In Ireland, O’Neill’s rebellion of 1596-1603 was a political push to break
from the Tudors and govern Ulster independently. Therefore, it seems evident that
rebellions against the Tudors were often motivated by political ambition, changing from
attempts to destroy the monarchy to exerting influence on them.
Some historians argue that religion was the true cause of the Tudor Rebellions, given the
dramatic changes brought about by the Reformation and Cromwell’s ruthlessly efficient
closure of monasteries nationwide. It is true that religion incited several rebellions; for
example, the Western Rising of 1549 was sparked by religious protest, directed at the
introduction of the new Book of Common Prayer, which was viewed as extremely
Protestant, and was worsened by rumours of Protestants seizing goods. The religious
element is most evident in William Body’s murder, who oversaw the removal of Catholic
images in local churches. Despite this, it would be unfair to argue that all Tudor rebellions
were motivated by religion. Many historians would cite the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 –
the largest and most threatening rebellion – as clear evidence of this, yet this may not be
accurate. For the masses, the Pilgrimage was a religious crusade, evidenced by the Banner
of 5 Wounds, which shows the wounds which Christ endured on the Cross, and suggests
that many Pilgrims thought this was a battle upon Christ’s behalf. 3 Fletcher and
MacCulloch dispute this, describing the Pilgrimage as a “northern civil war” 4 between
those who despised Cromwell’s policies and those who benefitted from them. The changes
of the Reformation may not have been as disruptive as expected – all over Europe,
Lutherian doctrine had risen up and promoted reform. It seems that the roots of the
Pilgrimage of Grace were in fact political, motivated by factionalism. The criticism of
advisors resurfaced in the Pilgrimage, directed at Cromwell – a man of low birth – mainly
by northern powers like the Percys, who resented Cromwell’s government for sidelining
the north. The northern element of the rising is reinforced by the fact that the south
remained mostly peaceful. Later rebellions, like Wyatt’s, or the Northern Rebellion, had
Protestant influences, but in both cases, they were a more obvious attempt to gain political
power or reduce the power of an enemy faction (with Wyatt wanting to end Spanish
influence.) Therefore, whilst religion was clearly a strong motive – especially for the
2
Taken from p.75, Fellows, N., 2001. Disorder and Rebellion in Tudor England
3
page 149-152, Elton, G.R., 2015. England under the Tudors. Routledge
4
p.45 Fletcher, A. and MacCulloch, D., 2008. Tudor rebellions. Pearson Education.
“Political discontent was the main cause of the Tudor Rebellions”. How far do you agree?
Following the Wars of the Roses, the century of Tudor rule was a critical period – from
the installation of a new dynasty in 1485 to the changes brought about by the Reformation
during the 1530s. Numerous rebellions saw either bursts of regional discontent (like the
1497 Cornish Rising), or elaborate conspiracies, such as the Northern Rebellion of 1569.
Whilst some historians argue that economic or religious discontent were key causes of
Tudor rebellions, it would be more credible to argue that political discontent was the
motivation behind many of these uprisings, characterized by dynastic power struggles
under Henry VII but shifting to become criticisms of “evil advisors”, motivated by
jealousy of low-born advisors with considerable power.
Political discontent was the motive behind most Tudor rebellions; whether dynastic or
attacks on advisors. This was most pronounced in the dynastic rebellions which plagued
Henry VII – namely, the pretenders Simnel and Warbeck; the former’s identity changed
from Richard of York to Edward, Earl of Warwick whilst Warbeck claimed he was
Richard of York. In both instances, their foreign support (Warbeck was supported by
Margaret, Charles VIII of France and the Holy Roman Emperor) indicates that these
rebellions were attempts to supplant the fledgling Tudor dynasty with one amenable to
foreign interests – which Henry VII was clearly not, evidenced by his defence of Brittany
against France in the 1490s – and one with the Yorkist roots still embedded in northern
England. This influenced Margaret of Burgundy’s support (the aunt of the Princes in the
Tower), most notably when she sent 2,000 mercenaries to aid Simnel. During Elizabeth’s
reign, the Northern Rebellion in 1569 began as another dynastic plot, a foolish gamble
incited by the Duke of Norfolk (who hoped to marry Mary Queen of Scots to produce an
heir and supplant the Tudor dynasty), but developed into a desperate attempt by earls
Westmorland and Northumberland to gain power because of their dissatisfaction with
how the north had been politically marginalised. G.R. Elton emphasises how “The heads
of these houses had special grievances whose character may be illustrated by the fact that
Northumberland resented his loss of a valuable copper mine to the queen.”1 The Northern
Rebellion also displayed hatred of “evil advisors” as Norfolk led an anti-Cecil faction. He
despised William Cecil’s dominance of the privy council and thought that his actions, such
as impounding Spanish ships in 1568, risked war. This dislike of the Cecils was repeated
in the Essex Rebellion of 1601. When rallying men to his cause, Essex characterised his
actions as a crusade to save Elizabeth from the clutches of the corrupt Robert Cecil. Earlier
rebellions, like Wyatt’s, were portrayed as attempts to save a monarch; in this case, a
1
Elton, G.R., 2015. England under the Tudors. Routledge.,
, marriage with Philip of Spain. Wyatt’s appeal to the English was: “We seek no harm to
the Queen, but better counsel and councillors.”2 This had entirely political motives, with
Wyatt employing anti-Spanish xenophobia out of fear that England would become a
satellite state. In Ireland, O’Neill’s rebellion of 1596-1603 was a political push to break
from the Tudors and govern Ulster independently. Therefore, it seems evident that
rebellions against the Tudors were often motivated by political ambition, changing from
attempts to destroy the monarchy to exerting influence on them.
Some historians argue that religion was the true cause of the Tudor Rebellions, given the
dramatic changes brought about by the Reformation and Cromwell’s ruthlessly efficient
closure of monasteries nationwide. It is true that religion incited several rebellions; for
example, the Western Rising of 1549 was sparked by religious protest, directed at the
introduction of the new Book of Common Prayer, which was viewed as extremely
Protestant, and was worsened by rumours of Protestants seizing goods. The religious
element is most evident in William Body’s murder, who oversaw the removal of Catholic
images in local churches. Despite this, it would be unfair to argue that all Tudor rebellions
were motivated by religion. Many historians would cite the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 –
the largest and most threatening rebellion – as clear evidence of this, yet this may not be
accurate. For the masses, the Pilgrimage was a religious crusade, evidenced by the Banner
of 5 Wounds, which shows the wounds which Christ endured on the Cross, and suggests
that many Pilgrims thought this was a battle upon Christ’s behalf. 3 Fletcher and
MacCulloch dispute this, describing the Pilgrimage as a “northern civil war” 4 between
those who despised Cromwell’s policies and those who benefitted from them. The changes
of the Reformation may not have been as disruptive as expected – all over Europe,
Lutherian doctrine had risen up and promoted reform. It seems that the roots of the
Pilgrimage of Grace were in fact political, motivated by factionalism. The criticism of
advisors resurfaced in the Pilgrimage, directed at Cromwell – a man of low birth – mainly
by northern powers like the Percys, who resented Cromwell’s government for sidelining
the north. The northern element of the rising is reinforced by the fact that the south
remained mostly peaceful. Later rebellions, like Wyatt’s, or the Northern Rebellion, had
Protestant influences, but in both cases, they were a more obvious attempt to gain political
power or reduce the power of an enemy faction (with Wyatt wanting to end Spanish
influence.) Therefore, whilst religion was clearly a strong motive – especially for the
2
Taken from p.75, Fellows, N., 2001. Disorder and Rebellion in Tudor England
3
page 149-152, Elton, G.R., 2015. England under the Tudors. Routledge
4
p.45 Fletcher, A. and MacCulloch, D., 2008. Tudor rebellions. Pearson Education.
