Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?
Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?
"The mid-Tudor crisis" is a term often used by historians to describe the reigns of Edward VI (1547-1553) and Mary I (1553-1558). This period can be seen as a crisis, due to the fact that there were so many problems, financial, social, religious and constitutional, all of which led to rebellions, and placed the country in a very unstable position.
It is clear that many of the origins of this 'crisis' have their roots in the reign of Henry VIII, especially in his final years, and therefore to an extent his policies were responsible for the 'mid-Tudor crisis'. He left a very difficult legacy to his successors, but it must be remembered that Somerset exacerbated the problems already in existence and Northumberland and Mary then had the difficult task of resolving them. Henry VIII on his own can not be held entirely responsible for the crisis, he was only one contributing factor. There were many underlying social and economic problems which his policies did not cause.
Henry's policies relating to the constitutional difficulties can not be held to blame for the crisis. Indeed, during his reign, Cromwell's reforms had actually made the Tudor state more powerful, but "this advantage was weakened by a minority". Before he died in 1547, Henry had attempted to prevent a power struggle by setting up a Privy Council of his most trusted advisors. The members were to have equal powers and were to govern until Edward reached the age of eighteen. This corporation was meant to be balanced between the conservative and radical factions but by the time of Henry's death, the radical party had gained control. It could be argued that Henry was partly responsible for this, as it was he who had expelled Gardiner and had Norfolk arrested, thus weakening the conservatives, but it was almost inevitable that one faction would emerge stronger. Although a balanced solution is ideal in theory, in practice it is almost impossible to operate when there is a power vacuum and "no longer a royal focus of authority". There was much rivalry between factions which prevented the government from being as united as it could have been on Henry's death.
From this struggle for power, Somerset emerged as leader. It is evident that he did not have enough support in the government, as he had to resort to the use of proclamations. Government under Henry VIII had been strong, and he had managed Parliament relatively well - but this was due to his force of personality and the same system, whereby the power of the monarch was based in Parliament, was not workable with a king who was only a minor, and a weaker leader, such as Somerset. Mary I also had problems with Parliament but these were not down to the policies pursued by Henry VIII; they were due to her own shortcomings, and also due to the fact that the House of Commons was increasing in importance - mirroring what was happening in society. Mary's personal stubbornness (including her aims to restore Catholicism and to marry Philip II of Spain) led to a decline in efficiency with the House of Lords and she also increased the size of the Privy Council to such an extent that it was too large to work effectively. Problems were also caused with the amount of faction at the time - in 1555 with the death of Gardiner, these decreased. It is evident, however, that Mary's troubles with Parliament were not due to any of the policies of Henry.
The succession crisis which came about after the death of Edward VI can in no way be blamed upon Henry VIII either, and Northumberland must be held responsible. Henry's will dictated that Mary should reign if Edward died without an heir, and it appears as if he had been trying to prevent the crisis which occurred. Northumberland tried to change the succession himself, proclaiming Lady Jane Grey queen. However, such was the support in the country for Mary, the rightful heir, that a potential political crisis was avoided. Even if the situation had been worse, Henry's policies could ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The succession crisis which came about after the death of Edward VI can in no way be blamed upon Henry VIII either, and Northumberland must be held responsible. Henry's will dictated that Mary should reign if Edward died without an heir, and it appears as if he had been trying to prevent the crisis which occurred. Northumberland tried to change the succession himself, proclaiming Lady Jane Grey queen. However, such was the support in the country for Mary, the rightful heir, that a potential political crisis was avoided. Even if the situation had been worse, Henry's policies could not be held responsible as Northumberland deliberately tried to promote his own interests, Lady Jane Grey being his daughter in law.
One area in which Henry's policies did cause crisis was finance. Henry had left financial problems for his successors due to his foreign policy - he had gone to war with both Scotland and France, and this aggressive foreign policy caused problems which continued well into the century. It can be argued that Henry had too many projects happening at one time in his final years - these wars were costly and achieved little. He had succeeded in gaining only the hostility of Scotland and France, and plunging the country deep into debt, with a debased coinage, leading the English currency to be "regarded with suspicion". The huge financial gains from the dissolution of the monasteries were squandered and loans with high interest were taken from Antwerp. However, it is also important not to judge Henry from the viewpoint of the twentieth century, as Henry saw his role as that of "warrior king", with the "acquisition of glory his main vocation" and the age of chivalry was not yet past. If he had been successful, for the people of England, the costs would have been far outweighed by the glory and prestige. Therefore, although it can be argued that this policy of Henry's did partly cause a crisis, it must also be borne in mind that war at this time was a matter of national pride.
Henry may have caused financial problems by his costly wars, but what began only as a problem was transformed into a crisis by Somerset, who continued the wars even once it was obvious that the country did not have the means to support this - England was virtually bankrupt in 1547. Somerset worsened the situation, by seizing more Church property (Chantries Act, 1547) and by debasing the coinage. He could have reformed the taxation and customs systems and brought the financial administration up to date (this was desperately needed) but his failings as a ruler are demonstrated by his lack of effort. When compared to Northumberland, and even Mary, neither of whom should be held responsible for financial problems, it can be seen that Somerset contributed to the crisis. It was Northumberland who realised it was necessary to end the wars (this showed realism even though it was "inglorious"), who re-evaluated the coinage in 1552, and who laid the foundations for the reformation of the revenue courts which took place under Mary. He also established the Privy Coffer to provide contingency funds. Mary herself reformed the customs and introduced the book of rates in 1558. There was also, as Guy perceives, a shift towards national finance. Although the period 1552-8 is still described as one of crisis, it must be remembered that there were some productive reforms, and the situation did not decline. The older generation of historians such as Pollard who see government as "sterile, impotent and unproductive" at this time do not seem to have taken into account these positive financial developments. It is evident that Henry was at the root of the financial problems and that they were exacerbated by Somerset, but the positive achievements of Northumberland and Mary must not be forgotten.
The financial problems also helped to spark off a social crisis. There was high inflation, a high population, more unemployment and an increase in the number of vagrants at this time. Only part of this can be attributed to the policies pursued by Henry VIII. It can be argued that his dissolution of the monasteries increased the number of vagrants, as the loss of monasteries meant there were seven thousand ex-religious who needed to find another way of life. It also meant a loss of charity as this was one of the functions of a Benedictine monastery. Henry can also be blamed for the enclosure policies which adversely affected the common people. Although in 1515 Wolsey had an enclosure act passed, it was not enforced, as the support of the gentry was necessary in parliament.
However, there are many other reasons for the social crisis and the part Henry played in this was only a minor one. The main reasons are the underlying problems and the way in which Somerset in particular failed to deal with them. Harvest failures were frequent and this increased the chance of famine and the price of grain. Somerset failed to deal with the root causes of the problem (possibly due to the fact that he had no real understanding of them) and although the older generation of historians such as Elton see Somerset as being "humanitarian" and sympathetic to the poor, this is unlikely, as the Vagrancy Act of 1547 showed little concern for those it should have protected, and the tax on wool adversely affected the poor. Indeed, Heard's view that he was "an arrogant self-seeker" is far more likely. It would be far more in Somerset's political interests for the aristocracy to support him, not for the poor to.
Although Kett's rebellion and the Western rebellion, both in 1549, were largely due to religious grievances, the economic and social measures undertaken by Somerset played a part, as the rebels were also protesting against enclosure and inflation. Somerset did not seem as genuinely interested in helping the poor as Elton believes - he was preoccupied with preventing riot and rebellion - demonstrated by his act banning football in 1548, on the grounds that games led to riots. Neither Northumberland nor Mary contributed to the social problems, and indeed they both attempted to restore the situation, Northumberland for example passed a new poor law act in 1552, and repealed the unpopular 1547 vagrancy act. Mary too increased poor relief, and passed a law against the hoarding of grain.
Another main area of crisis at this time was religion, and Henry's policies were the root cause - his legacy was "a nation divided in religion". His changes to the Church, which had resulted, not in Protestantism, but in Henrician Catholicism (or 'Catholicism without the Pope'), had done much to confuse the nation. He had initially moved in a Protestant direction with the Act of Ten Articles in 1536, and in 1538, the insistence that all churches use a prayer book in the vernacular, but then in 1539, there was a swing back towards Catholicism with the Act of Six Articles. This was probably in response to the Pilgrimage of Grace, a conservative reaction in 1536. The religious changes in the period 1530-1559 were so rapid with the different rulers and Henry can be held partly responsible for this as he had his son, Edward, brought up as a Protestant, whereas his daughter Mary was a devout Catholic.
Henry's policies, while at the root of the religious crisis, were not the sole cause. Under Somerset the Church moved once more in a Protestant direction. Initially this was a fairly cautious approach; Somerset wanted "to appeal to as wide a range of opinion as possible". However, in 1549, he contributed to the crisis by introducing the 1549 Prayer Book, and the First Act of Uniformity. This was felt by some (devout Catholics) to be too extreme, (although in reality the interpretation of the Eucharist was ambiguous) and Cranmer, who had a strong influence on the prayer book can also be held accountable. Religious grievances, based on the measures adopted by Somerset, had a large part to play in both Kett's and the Western rebellion in 1549, as these rebellions were both marked by religious conservatism. These rebellions were the main point of the crisis - indeed, they led to Somerset's removal from power. He had moved in too Protestant a direction for the Catholics, but on the other hand, not far enough for the radical reformers. In 1547, by passing the Treason Act, there was increased freedom for the discussion of doctrine. This debate had been opened in the reign of Henry, and Somerset was enabling it to continue. This led to many pamphlets being produced, especially by the radicals, which only inflamed the situation further, as neither extremes felt that they had benefited from his reforms.
When Northumberland came into power, even though his reforms were far more extreme, with no possibility of alternative interpretation, he did not at that time cause crisis by putting the country in a firmly Protestant position. By being more decisive than Somerset and indeed Henry, he was aiming to show that the government was firmly in control and able once again to dictate policy, thus stabilising society. By the end of his time in power, it did seem as if the establishment of a Protestant church had been achieved, with no rebellions. He was more forceful than Somerset and it seems that after he had successfully crushed the 1549 rebellions, the people were in fear of him. It can be argued that if Edward had not at this point died, the religious situation would gradually have increased in stability and there would have been no further crisis.
However, when Mary I became queen in 1553, the country was once more thrown into religious turmoil. By this stage, it seems as if it would have been more sensible to keep the country's religion in the form it was, and Mary's own policies caused the further crisis. She acted according to her own personal beliefs - her "own single ambition was to restore England to the papal obedience, to save - as she saw it - her country from mortal sin". It seems as if she failed to realise the political implications of restoring England to Roman Catholicism - she wanted the Church to be as it was before the break with Rome in 1536. Obviously this was bound to cause problems for her, as the gentry had gained church lands, and were worried they might lose these under Mary. Her policy of religious persecution which began in 1555 only served to turn popular opinion against her. Opposition to her religious policies had already been demonstrated in 1554 with Wyatt's rebellion. As Guy believes, "opposition . . . sprang from anti-papal xenophobia" and there was also a fear at this time that England would be drawn into Spain's wars, due to her marriage to the Catholic Philip II. This did eventually happen, and Mary became very unpopular.
Therefore, when dealing with the religious crisis, it can be argued that Henry was only responsible in part, and it is possible that even if he had not begun the religious changes himself, with the events taking place on the continent, and the influence of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, there were likely to be those in England who wanted reform.
To conclude, it can be argued that Henry's policies were, in part, responsible for 'the mid-Tudor crisis'. It is clear that many of the problems, in particular the financial and religious problems, have their roots in his reign. However, the rulers in the period 1547-58 are also to blame, notably Somerset who was, despite the positive interpretation of his rule given by Elton, a poor leader. Mary I's stubbornness and single minded beliefs over religion also led to a crisis. The underlying social problems and the constitutional difficulties which no-one was responsible for, also played their part. Because Edward and Mary both ruled for such a short time, the country had to adjust very rapidly to the changes brought about. If either monarch had ruled for longer, and succeeded in establishing either Protestantism or Catholicism, it seems likely that stability would have returned to the country. It is also important to consider the relative strength of government in that even though there were major rebellions, it did not collapse at this time, and indeed, it is now believed by historians such as Heard that there was no real crisis. As he sees it, " a period of dynastic weakness and minority rule had passed without the country dissolving into civil war", as happened in France for example.