Tudor rebellions and social involvement

How far do you agree that the involvement of different social classes in rebellions changed dramatically over 1485-1597?          
The Tudor dynasty can be seen as originating from a rebellion itself.  In 1485 young Henry Tudor defeated King Richard III in a small trading town south of Leicester at the Battle of Bosworth.  Rebellion remained a fundamental aspect of Tudor society throughout the hundred years of this period.  The general nature of the involvement and leadership of rebellions at the beginning of this era came from the nobility.  This can be compared to The Rising of the Northern Earls in 1569 when, yet again, the main conspirators were, as the name suggests, predominantly upper class.  However this enquiry will be looking at the change that occurred through the period with regards to fundamental involvement; predominantly leaders and their social class.  It will also address whether it the changes remained constant or not.  It must be taken into consideration that although supported, and organised, by gentry and lesser nobility; the main bulk of rebellions were made up by ordinary folk persuaded to do so by their superiors.  A turning point in the involvement may be seen between the years under the reign of Edward VI.  However; my hypothesis is that the turning point will only last a brief period and then revert back to previous involvement.  The main social classes to be addressed are; noblemen, gentry, and peasantry.  To properly address this topic the use of specific taxation and rebellion texts have been sourced, primarily from; books, documents, internet sites and documentaries created for television.

It can be seen that the main precipitators of early Tudor rebellions were the gentlemen who were disgruntled at the way in which the crown had changed hands.  It had only been only a year when the Lambert Simnel uprising occurred in 1486.  The main leader of the uprising was John de la Pole.  J. D. Mackie argued that, “Lincoln, although apparently reconciled with the Tudor king, himself had a claim on the throne.”  As the last Plantagenet, it can be seen that de la Pole’s social class was high nobility.  Therefore it can be argued that the initial trend of social involvement was that of higher classes, especially in the organisation of the uprisings.  Moreover; higher classes can be seen to organise rebellions further into Henry VI’s reign.

The trend of social involvement in rebellion had been set as noble after Henry’s gain of the throne in 1485 and the Lambert Simnel uprising where the Earl of Lincoln sought to overthrow the new king.  After 12 years of his reign in 1497 Henry VII was a victim of the Cornish Taxation Rebellion where around 15,000 ordinary folk from the West Country marched towards London, marching as far as Guildford, Surrey.  The uprising was lead by Thomas Flamank, a gentleman of Cornwall, and disgruntled lesser nobleman Lord Audley.  However; several other Cornish gentry joined in the rebellion and offered their services in organisation and administration of the revolt.  Although; the main participants were spread across the peasantry, indeed it has been argued that the only factor reducing the effectiveness of the result was the need to harvest.  Many labourers were forced to return home to tend their crops.  Stated that the leader of the uprising, “Michael Joseph (An Gof), a blacksmith from St. Keverne and Thomas Flamank a lawyer of Bodmin, incited many of the people of Cornwall into armed revolt against the King.” This would suggest a slight change that both tradesmen and gentry were involved in the organisation of the march. This rebellion shows that although the higher gentry and select few noblemen were involved in the rebellions, tradesmen initiated the uprising. 

It may be argued that wars in France caused a brief change in the involvement in rebellion.  In 1525 Henry and Wolsey tried to levy the Amicable Grant; a tax of up to 1/6 was levied on secular goods, and up to 1/3 on ecclesiastical possessions . However; the refusal to pay never exacerbated into a state that may be described as rebellion and therefore must be counted as an anomaly.  Henry alleviated the stress shortly after it appeared by recalling the grant.  Legal threats “claimed that under terms of a 1484 statute, all benevolences (gifts of money to the crown) were banned” .  The change witnessed was the use of legal involvement in the early stages of upset among the people.  None the less; the initial involvement was from the skilled labour such as cloth-workers; indeed, David Ross stated that, “cloth-workers strenuously objected to the Grant,” suggesting that they, the tradesmen, were paramount in their involvement.  The involvement can be seen as coming from central classes, abhorring the norm of involvement from the gentry or nobles.

Rebellion remained rife under the rule of Henry VIII and although decades had passed the involvement of social classes had changed very little.  Henry’s attack on the Roman Catholic Church caused outrage among some people that came to a head in 1536.  Involvement in the rebellion named Pilgrimage of Grace was widespread.  However; once again the leaders mainly consisted of gentry.  Robert Aske, the overall leader of the revolt, was a gentleman lawyer.  He was highly respected and attorney to Duke of Northumberland.  Large numbers of county gentry were also supporters of the uprising such as Sir Edward Dymoke, Sheriff of Lincoln, Lumley, Latimer, Hussey and Darcy.  Baron Halpenny stated that “With support from local gentry, a force of demonstrators, estimated at up to 40,000 marched on Lincoln,” thus supporting the view that gentry were, once again, highly involved.  In this instance very little change can be seen due to the leading gentry as well as the involvement of some noblemen.  Stanley, Neville, Percy and Clifford were prominent names as well as many members of the clergy such as abbot of Furness.  Once again a corresponding involvement of gentry can be seen.  This compares this to the social involvement that the King’s father had witnessed no less than 39 years previously, the change that occurred was gradual and change was slow.

It can be seen that during the 64 years since the birth of the Tudor dynasty, the nature of rebellion began a transition.  In 1549 the young King Edward and Protector Somerset was faced with Kett’s Rebellion.  This rebellion was led predominantly by Kett, an ex-tanner and Flowerdew.  These two men were lower gentry, landlords in Norfolk, the rebellion started as a squabble between these two parties and escalated from there.  Contrary to previous rebellions very few lesser nobles showed interest and no major landlords got involved at all.  Many leaders were commoners and yeomen who pleaded with Protector Somerset to redress their grievances. Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch support this view by stating that, “people from all around the area... Joined Kett on the Heath,” the lack of names and titles suggests a common standard of people.  A vast change can be seen here. It can be seen as a rapid change considering the time period was over only 13 years.  Where previously higher gentry and noblemen were often quite eager to show support and offer involvement, very few were drawn in.

Once again in 1549 rebellion can be seen to maintain this pattern set by Kett’s Rebellion; in the form of being void of the involvement of gentry.  Rebellion sparked in opposition to the 1549 act of uniformity with regards to the Book of Common Prayer. Rebels amassed in Bodmin and marched on to besiege the city of Exeter.  Involvement was predominantly peasantry who were also angry at the profit made by gentry after the distribution of monastic lands.  It has been said that, Jorge H. Castelli stated, “Probably very few gentry cared a straw whether the church service was in English or Latin and communion in one kind or two,” this quote shows that gentry, out of trend, refrained from involvement in the rebellion.  The main bulk of the rebels consisted of Catholic peasantry.  The gentry had a vested interest in allowing the monastic land to be sold to them for good prices.  This resulted in an attack on gentry and participation from peasants it can be seen that no change had occurred through this rebellion.

It can be said that uprisings saw a drastic social change in 1553 when Princess Mary attacked Lady Jane Grey and the Duke of Northumberland.  To try and ensure the continuation of the new protestant doctrines and government; Edward’s last act was to try and secure his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as successor to the throne.  When it became obvious that Mary was to be bypassed by Northumberland she began sending letters to the new Queen.  After being called a bastard child, Mary threatened to take the throne by force and by the 11th of June Mary was well on her way to London with an entire army. The involvement of royalty acted as an anomaly and few knew how to act this is supported by Elizabeth Lee who stated that, “though the Protestant councillors were not fond of Mary’s religious views, many still regarded her as the rightful heir.” This act of force can be seen as an anomaly of changing involvement; indeed the highest social class, nobility, had been involved in the rebellion that ensured the crown. 

The change seen in involvement that occurred under Edward can be said to persist into the reign of Edward’s sister.  When the Catholic Queen Mary ascended to the thrown after the death of Edward many protestant reformers were anxious.  Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain presented a new fear of regression back towards Catholicism.  Sir Thomas Wyatt was a member of a wealthy gentry family he along with 14 others, 8 of whom were protestant, began producing anti-Spanish propaganda in The 1554 Wyatt’s Rebellion.  Starkey listed that, “There were four chief rebel leaders: Sir Thomas Wyatt, who owned large areas of land in Kent, Sir James Croft, who came from an influential Herefordshire family, Sir Peter Carew, who was an MP for Devon, Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk” the titles involved suggest high socially classed involvement. Nobles had once again refused to offer support.  This can be seen as a continuation of the special make up of Kett’s Rebellion.  Therefore it can be seen as a prolongation of the change that had occurred under King Edward VI. 

Involvement is rebellion saw a reversion back to the 15th Century social make-up of rebellions  in 1569 when Elizabeth I faced the opposition that manifested itself in the form of The Rebellion of the Northern Earls.  Mary reversed the protestant doctrines, much of which had been introduced under Edward.  Protestant Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, began to revert away from the Catholic Church once again.  When Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England a united front began to form in front of Elizabeth.  The main participators were the Earl of Northumberland, Earl of Westmoreland as well as a high number of lesser nobles Jorge H. Castelli supports this be claiming that, “The rebellion was led by two members of the great Northern nobility.”  Parallels can be seen in the rebellions as noble involvement was common in the beginning of the time period as well as the end.  During the period of Edward VI and Mary I, the main conspirators can be seen as gentry and even commoners.

To conclude it can be seen that involvement of different social classes in rebellions changed moderately over the Tudor dynasty 1485-1597.  For instance between Henry VII and Henry VIII the involvement can be seen to have examples of similarity, offering little evidence of change.  However; this is not true for examples of rebellion under Edward VI and Protector Somerset; Kett’s rebellion pooled insignificant support from lesser nobles and higher gentry as had been witnessed previously.  This can be described as rather a significant change.  This alteration is continued through the reign of Mary I. Although the leader of the revolt, Sir Thomas Wyatt was a member of a wealthy family of gentry, further support from other gentry and noblemen cannot be seen.  The social involvement of different social classes can be seen to have been turned on its head once again with The Rebellion of the Northern Earls in 1569.  As the name suggests, once again involvement from higher powers can be seen.  For this reason it can be said that involvement began and ended with support from higher gentry and noblemen; however, the variety in the middle of the era can be seen to deem the change moderate.