In addition to documents and laws, there were physical changes inside the Churches, altars were replaced by communion tables, and popish images were removed from the Church. This was again an attempt to de-Catholicise the Church’s in a more physical manner, rather than just making Protestantism compulsory through documents and Acts. The appointment of more radical Protestant Bishops such as Hooper and Ridley arguably shows that religious revolution was taking hold, and on the 24th November 1552 Cramer’s Forty two Articles were published, which showed a complete Protestant interpretation of Christianity.
The reaction to these changes were arguably significant, in 1549 the country reached a crisis point, there were full scale rebellions in East Anglia, Cornwall and Devon – and many believe that these rebellions were in response to the new Prayer Book. It could be argued that the riots and rebellions did to some extent ‘tear’ the country apart, and that their main cause was religious conservatism. The Western and Ketts rebellions were however representative of general unhappiness with the state of the country, and it is reasonable to suggest that it was religious revolution that caused these disturbances.
Despite these radical changes, it can be argued that religious revolution did not occur, the Church was certainly not fully revolutionised by the end of Edward’s reign, and arguably religious ‘crisis’ would be more accurate phrasing than religious ‘revolution’. England was not fully Protestant in 1553, when Edward died, and this is shown by Mary coming in and easily imposing changes back to Catholicism. Therefore to some extent the supposed revolution failed, and perhaps actually the extent of the religious divide has been over exaggerated by historians. Although it is difficult to argue that there was not unrest, the country was far from torn apart during his reign. The rebellions were not a particular threat to Edward himself, and it could be suggested that Somerset’s incompetency and failure to act was the only reason that they lasted as long as they did, and that after 1549, Northumberland kept the country relatively stable.
Alternatively, religious revolution may not be the primary cause of rebellion at the time. Many people were far more unhappy about Enclosure policies and taxation, for example the Sheep Tax that was introduced in 1549. Reasons for the rebellions may have been far from discontent at religious policies, the Devon Articles drawn up by the Western rebels were on religious and economic issues. Arguably factors such as the hatred of local government officials, and distrust between peasants and landowners, were far more important. The historian Duffy believes in the importance of ‘class antagonism’ when thinking about the cause of the rebellions, showing perhaps that actually religious reform had less of an impact than we have come to believe.
When Mary came to power in 1553, she launched a counter revolution. During her first parliament in October 1553, she repealed reforming legislation from Edward’s reign, including both Prayer Books. Later on in a more radical policy she deprived seven Bishops of their sees, including Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and Hooper, and four of them were imprisoned. She adopted a new policy that hadn’t been as active under Edward – that of persecution. During her reign she burnt three hundred Protestants, prosecuting them under the Heresy Laws of April 1554, and in 1558 it became law that any one that owned prohibited books would be given the death penalty. It can easily be argued that this too was religious revolution, just in the other direction.
To some extent perhaps the country was torn apart, not just from the amount of persecution and burnings, which earned her the nickname ‘bloody Mary’ but from further rebellion as well. In 1554 the Wyatt’s rebellion took place with a force of between 2,500 to 3,000, and this rebellion was arguably a more serious threat, mostly due to its proximity to London. Historians such as Tittler view religion as an important cause, as leaders of the rebellion such as Carew, Croft and Sussex were all Protestant, which gives evidence that religious revolution did at least begin to ‘tear apart’ England.
However, due to the fact that the country was neither fully Catholic of fully Protestant at the end of Mary’s reign, it could be said that though she attempted religious revolution, it was not very successful and that although there was some unrest, generally there was a lot of stability throughout her reign as most people were largely conservative when it came to religion. Wyatt’s rebellion may not be seen as that significant, as Mary acted swiftly and intelligently, for example she refrained from appealing to Charles V knowing it would antagonise the situation and on 1st February 1554 she issued a personal appeal from Guildhall, playing on the people’s fear of incursion into the city. The rebellion was also much less in numbers than the Ketts rebellion had been and realistically never got anywhere. Therefore it can be argued that the country was not ‘torn apart’ at all and that Mary’s reign was actually more stable than Edwards.
On the other hand, there were other motives for the rebellion other than religious, mainly anti-Spanish xenophobia due to the marriage between Mary and Prince Philip of Spain. It may also be argued that religious revolution was more of a formality, because as soon as Mary came to power people began reverting back to Catholicism anyway, and therefore religion would not have caused a significant divide.
Overall to some extent the claim is valid, in both Edward and Mary’s reign there was a certain amount of religious revolution and divide. However it is impossible to come to the conclusion that it tore the country apart, as generally life was never so disrupted that it stopped. What is clear though is that at the end of both reigns the country was neither one religion nor the other, due to a number of reasons, perhaps the most prominent being both monarchs lack of time to enforce one religion or the other. When Elizabeth came to the throne and successfully restored Protestantism, she had a lot more time, and had been handed what was following all of these different reforms, a more religiously neutral country. Whilst to an extent there was religious revolution, the revolution was coming from above, never below, and with very few exceptions, the people were most definitely not revolutionised. It could be argued that there was more revolution under Edward than Mary, due to the stable nature of the country during Mary’s reign, however the discontent under Edward was more due to social and economic factors than religious ones. In conclusion, religious ‘crisis’ and ‘disruption’ are more accurate terms to describe the changes and the resulting state of the country between 1547 and 1558, than religious ‘revolution’ and ‘torn apart’ are.
by
emily__rose (student)
