Toby Stanford

Wednesday 18th November

Rebellion and Unrest 1547-1558

How far was religion the major cause of these three rebellions?
Religion played an indisputable role in each of these three rebellions (Prayer
Book, Ketts and Wyatts). The crux of the Prayer Book (otherwise known as the
Western) Rebellion which occurred in Devon and Cornwall in 1549 was religion,
as it involved a Catholic people revolting against the Protestant reforms
instigated during Edward VIs reign. Church inspector William Body was actually
murdered in 1548 in Cornwall after he came to supervise the destruction of
Catholic images, after a whirl of rumours circulated concerning the removal of
church goods. Also, the final straw for the incitement of the people into rebellion
was put upon the camels back in a small village named Sampford, Devon, after
their local priest made use of the Second Prayer Book o Whitsunday, 1549, which
sparked the descent into revolution.
Religion played less of a part, however, in Ketts rebellion in East Anglia although it was a contributing factor nonetheless. The people of East Anglia near
Norwich in 1549 were skewed the exact opposite way to the Catholics of Devon
and Cornwall, in the sense that they were campaigning for more radical
Protestant reforms. This is made clear in the list of demands Kett drew up on
Mousehold Heath: We pray that priests from henceforth shall purchase no
lands. The ownership of lands by the church was a distinctly Catholic feature, so
this portrays the Protestant implications of this rebellion. Whilst religion may not
have been the main cause of Ketts revolt, it is certainly prevalent in the origins
of Wyatts. Wyatt did not wish to see the marriage of King Philip II of Spain to
Mary I of England in 1554, as Spain was a predominately Catholic country, and
the restoration of Catholicism was not desired, as detailed in John Proctors The
Historie of Wyatts Rebellion. Religion was an inevitably important factor in each
of these three rebellions, as this was a period of great religious upheaval, a
veritable see-saw of Protestant-Catholic reforms, which led to a great public
unrest.
It is, however, easy to overplay the importance of religion in the origins of these
three rebellions. Although the primary cause of the Western Rebellion was the
instigation of Protestant reforms, another cause was the widespread poverty, as
Cornwall relied on the meagre profits of tin mining, which was worsened by the
enclosure policy at a time of soaring inflation, which prevented people from
grazing their animals engendering famine. Additionally, the introduction of a
parliament tax on cloth and sheep steepened poverty, and circulating rumours
regarding more taxes on animals caused more malcontent. Furthermore, the
people of Cornwall felt the blanket reforms being introduced by the government
were an insult to their intrinsic regional identity, which the Cornish felt was being
swallowed by the umbrella-esque policies. Wyatts rebellion also had ulterior
origins, including xenophobia towards Spain (fuelled by Wyatts use of
propaganda), and a fear that the marriage between Philip II and Mary I may
cause England to be entangled into the Hapsburg wars, a war it could not afford.

Toby Stanford
Wednesday 18th November
Another reason for this rebellion was the fear that the marital agreement
between Philip and Mary detailing no Spanish heir would rule England but that
the lineage would pass to Elizabeth would not be kept, which would subordinate
England into the Hapsburg Empire.
Ketts rebellion is the one least related to religion, the wish for more radical
Protestant reforms actually playing more of a back role. This rebellion actually
started after a drunken feast from the 6-8th of July led to a group of men
advancing and tearing down the fences of local lawyer John Flowerdew, in a
protest against the enclosure policy. The enclosure policy affected the people of
East Anglia in the same way it did the people of Devon and Cornwall, but in more
depth; the exclusively East Anglian and incredibly lucrative industry of saffron
growth was being threatened, as well as the trade being disrupted for local
farmers and the dangers to fishing. As well as this, the recent collapse of the
textile industry of which Norwich was a centre had led to widespread poverty,
which was only worsened by the rising rents in a time of inflation: all of this
spawned general bad spirit, but particularly against the local government and
the gentry who failed to represent the common people fairly. Another, more
obscure cause was nevertheless important; the keeping of rabbits and doves by
those who werent gentry. The people of East Anglia accepted their place in
society and therefore couldnt keep them. However, when farmers and yeomen
began to keep rabbits and doves, the peasants were discontented. It wasnt only
a matter of place in society, however: the excessive quantity of rabbits and
doves in the area was counterproductive for farming, as the animals often ate
crops. Finally, another cause of the Ketts rebellion was the campaign for the
ending of serfdom, serfdom being the mandatory period of unpaid labour
(effectively slavery) every peasant had to undergo for a member of the gentry.
In conclusion, whilst it is clear that religion played an important role in each of
these three rebellions there were other important factors which are invaluable to
take into account to fully understand the origins of each of these three rebellions.
This doesnt mean religion should be discounted, however; this was a time of
great religious change, so it is inevitable it should take a pivotal role in the cause
of unrest.
How much of a threat to the stability of the monarchy were these three
rebellions?
Each of these three rebellions of this period posed some threat to the stability of
the monarchy, but some more than others. Ketts rebellion showed a threat
because of the size and speed of its movement, a group of 16,000 setting up
camp on Mousehold Heath on the 12th July 1549, and its establishment within the
community, with Norwich accepting its new neighbour (the Sheriff was nearly
arrested when he attempted to disperse the rebels), making it harder to disperse
the rebels. Had the government reacted more quickly, and the Marquis of
Northampton been more successful in his negotiations, the rebellion may have
posed less of a threat as it would have had less time to consolidate itself As well
as this, the unity of the group and the strong figurehead of Robert Kett himself

Toby Stanford
Wednesday 18th November
made it trickier for the government to disband the rebels by offering a full pardon
to those who dispersed, which they discovered when only 20 accepted such an
offer. The threat of Ketts rebellion was so great in fact, 1,000 foreign
mercenaries had to be employed to help crush the rebellion. This is because of
the sustained campaigns in Scotland and France, which depleted the English
army greatly, and in fact the Scottish war had to be ended to deal with this
rebellion. There is, however, evidence that Ketts rebellion didnt pose such a
huge danger to the stability of the monarchy: firstly, there was no march on
London itself, which means no real threat was shown towards the central
government. Also, the ill coordination between separate uprisings made them
much easier to quell, and the lack of support of the nobility (excluding Kett
himself) meant the rebellion wasnt particularly threatening.
Despite being described by Anthony Fletcher as a more determined and
widespread opposition than any Tudor government [had yet faced] and the
continuing dilemma of the persisting campaigns in Scotland and France, the
Western or Prayer Book didnt seem to pose much of a threat to the stability of
the monarchy. One outstanding reason for this is the distinct lack of a
charismatic leader, like Robert Kett, so the whole affair was slightly disorganised.
This eventually led to its downfall, as the ease with which the other disturbances
were put down allowed to troops of Lord Grey to merge with the original phalanx
of Russel, which then overcame the movement with the help of the Earl of
Shrewsburys own retainers. As with Ketts there was no march on London, only
on Exeter, so there was no direct offensive towards the central government, thus
minimising the threat of the revolution.
The Wyatts rebellion is the rebellion which showed the most threat to the
stability of the monarchy, as there was a direct march on London and the
rebellion was only halted half a kilometre from the Queen at Ludgate. Also, what
made the rebellion ever more threatening was the tendency of the nobles and
officials to wait and ascertain the outcome of the rebellion, as if it was
successful, or wasnt, they wouldnt want to be on the wrong side of the victor so
they remained impartial. This created problems for the government, as it meant
there was little opposition to the revolt, allowing it to make progress and gain
momentum. Despite this, there were setbacks to the revolt from the offset.
Firstly, successful government intelligence forced the rebellion to start early,
even though the other planned uprisings failed to occur, meaning Wyatt lost
valuable support. Despite his premature start, Wyatt was far too cautious on his
advance into London, giving his enemies time to rally in defence with a
substantial force, and there was actually a lack of support for the rebellion
anyway, as the public was unwilling to usurp a rightful monarch. Mary evidently
did not see the rebellion as much of a threat, as she was relatively lenient, only
executing 90, although this may have been to avoid sparking another rebellion.
In conclusion, each of these three revolutions presented some threat towards the
government, but it is only Wyatts which posed a real danger towards the
stability of the monarchy as it attempted to usurp Mary and replace her with

Toby Stanford
Wednesday 18th November
Elizabeth. Therefore, even if all of the rebellions had been successful, it is only
Wyatts which would have altered the monarchy.