The government is largely to blame for this episode and few other factors cause it. Had Henry not wanted to go to war with France this problem would not have arisen. It was his own selfish needs that put him in a position that made him look weak. In addition, resentment was worsened when certain counties were exempt from paying the taxes, mostly those that bordered Scotland. Historians such as Scarisbrick say ‘[the collectors] came upon lambs already close shorn’. This statement highlights what state earlier taxes had put the commoners and landlords in. Landlords as a result raised their rents which helped fuel antipathy for the government. Moreover, the period in which to raise the taxes was only three months. Tudor government was not effective or fluid enough to make this happen in such a short time scale. The circumstances in which those affected by the taxes were in drew sympathy from both the gentry and nobles. This cross-section of society made the rebellion more effect and serious for Henry’s government. This may have been a possible reason for their backing down for the first time. Another reason may be the early stage in Henry’s reign in which the revolt occurred. Henry was still reinforcing his kingship though not under any real threat until now. However, he successfully deferred the blame on to Wolsey, which meant Henry’s appeared to be the hero in the matter having cancelled the tax where as Wolsey was the perpetrator. The King’s image though unaffected, meant his chief minister was discredited.
The Pilgrimage of Grace offers a more complex issue, since it does not have a single factor nor was a concentrated rebellion. The rebellion though largely in the north spread from Lincolnshire to Yorkshire (where the main rebellion took place) to Cumberland. It lasted a long time for a Tudor rebellion, beginning in October and ending in January. This added to the seriousness of the threat. Further more, Henry’s forces were minute in comparison to the 40,000 strong revolt. Historians have varying opinions on the main cause of the rebellion and consensus cannot easily be found. Fletcher and MacCullock identify the Henrician Reformation as the main cause and to a greater extent it is true that the religion was an important theme that ran through the Pontefract Articles. However, it was indeed the gentry under the influence of the clergy who wrote the list of demands and hence further evidence is needed. Religion is also crucial in finding and umbrella under which a cross-section of society can come together. The dissolution of the smaller monasteries by Cromwell led to unrest in the north since charity was one of their prominent tasks as Davies hints. Nevertheless, though important, other factors are not to be neglected.
The dire state of the commoners compounded the situation leading some historians to believe socio-economic factors are to be blames such as Dickens and Ramsey. The rebellion encompassed a variety of social groups from commoners to nobles to the clergy. This made the uprising more dangerous and effective in getting Henry’s attention. For the first time Henry was willing to negotiate, though this may have been a tactic to buy time due to his unfavourable position. This is further proof that Henry took the rebellion seriously. Enclosures were also mentioned in the list of demands and it affected the commons. Add this to the demands made about entry fines, the Statute of Uses, taxes on baptism, burial and marriage, and the poor economic situation in the north and you should find a reasonable argument for economics as the main cause. Rex supports this by saying the Pilgrimage of Grace is ‘more social than religious’.
The most interesting interpretations of the cause of this complex rebellion are those by Elton. He claimed that the Pilgrimage of Grace was a manifestation of political factious fighting, in particular he mentions the Argonese and Boleyn factions. The support for this comes from the single demand of restoration of Mary as the successor of Henry. Though based on flimsy evidence it does produce an interesting find. Others have seen the insurgence as a feeling of north versus south. This stems from the request of a Council of the North and the centralising policies of Cromwell. Regardless of the causes the rebellion was in the end crushed and the ringleaders killed. However, it did pose a serious threat for Henry and the Tudor dynasty. It failure may have to do with a variety of reasons such as Robert Aske’s willingness to compromise and the lack of concentration in terms of aims. Additionally though over a large area it was relatively confined to the north of England. It is also important to remember that the Pilgrimage of Grace was not a single rebellion but a watershed term for several rebellions. Key nobles such as the Duke of Norfolk were against it, weakening the revolt’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, it did catch the government unaware and did make Henry cringe at the thought of its possible success.
In conclusion, Henry’s government did face a relatively stable and long period of rule. This does mean that the threat may have over-thrown the comparatively short periods of reign of Edward VI and Mary I but for Henry and Elizabeth it was an unlikely situation. However, it is not to say that the threat is only a footnote, as in the end the two rebellions did achieve either all or most of their aims in the future. Hence, they were a point of influence upon him. In terms of government action being the main cause, it can be said with confidence that this was the case. The actions of Henry’s chief ministers did lead to much of the unrest throughout the country, and though there were bad harvests and poor trade, the government was largely to blame when it came to change. The problem faced was the modernising of a conservative nation at such as rapid pace especially during Cromwell’s period of influence.