However, it may be that not everyone did accept the changes, as there is evidence of parishes seeming to have maintained traditional Catholic practises despite authoritative pressure, and the speed at which Catholicism was restored after Edward’s death was extremely quick, suggesting that it retained large amounts of popularity, even if it was repressed during his reign. Even though there was a lot of money being given to the church through wills (8% of Kentish wills contained a recognisable Protestant preamble, and 27% in Suffolk), there was a decrease in preambles after 1938. Also, they can be difficult to interpret, as they are subjective and personal. It could have been merely a force of habit rather than real feeling and many people didn’t actually write wills themselves so it could have been the opinion of a priest instead of the deceased. Besides all this, many wills were destroyed and many didn’t even have wills – therefore the evidence may be biased. Nevertheless, the acceptance of Protestantism could have been due to several factors.
Some people may have genuinely believed that the Church was in desperate need of reform, as many of the changes made appeared to address criticisms of the Church, including attacks on its wealth, under Northumberland. Also, property and money were transferred to the crown so anyone who considered the church to be corrupt would have been content with seeing alterations made to improve it. Moreover, the majority of the population was moderate in their religious outlook – many were prepared to accept the religion of their monarch despite their diverse views on Christianity.
However, it may be that people were merely passively accepting the changes out of fear, as the Western rebellion of 1549 was successfully repressed and high profile opponents of the Reformation were seriously dealt with. For example, after Gardinier expressed his views publicly he was sent to the Tower of London, therefore people may have been afraid of the consequences of speaking out against King Edward. Nevertheless – the fact that there was a rebellion shows that there were pockets of discontent with the new Protestant Church and that not everyone accepted it.
Another reason that people may have accepted this was through gradual change – many people didn’t realise they were living through a Reformation, as W.K Jordan suggested: “the very gradual, moderate and in some ways almost insensible change in the order and spiritual content of worship” owed to the success of the implementation of Protestantism. In addition to this, the move towards Protestantism was very unclear anyway, for example, there were tolerant attitudes towards texts in the vernacular but there was also a direct translation by Cranmer of traditional Catholic rites into English, so therefore it would have been hard for anyone to contest against something that had not been fully and explicitly implemented.
Indeed, many people might have seen religion to be a political tool, for example, changes under Somerset’s rule had to be gradual so as to appease anti-reformist Charles V to maintain the military support he gave England. Consequently, people may have thought that in accepting the implementation of Protestantism, they would not be directly affected in any drastic way because it appeared to be a political means of securing foreign support.
Furthermore, people may have actually accepted the changes as their lives would have been improving economically. After the financial state of the crown was controlled by Northumberland as a consequence of ending wars against Scotland, expenditure was cut, and he pursued a “deflationary approach” which led to a fall in food prices. The link between change in religion and fall in food prices may have made many people deem them both as a good thing. Therefore, people may have been accepting the religious changes based purely on the benefits they were getting economically or through protection, the fact that they were unsure or ignorant about what was happening, or just out of fear of the consequences – rather than feeling wholeheartedly Protestant. Therefore we can only agree that England was a Protestant country in 1553 to a certain extent, because if the people of England did not think of themselves as Protestant – the fact that only official doctrine condoned it does not make England a fully Protestant country.
Besides, although doctrine was officially Protestant, the actual structure of the church was not. In fact, there was less change in the structure of the church compared to the changes of religious doctrine, as Protestants had different ideas as to how the church should be organised. There was no restructuring of bishoprics or dioceses (they remained as they had been under Catholicism), but the King did remain Supreme Head of the Church, and monasteries were not reinstated. However, there was no attempt to physically organise the church in a Protestant way, so this could suggest that England was not a total Protestant country by 1553.
In conclusion, England was a Protestant country officially through doctrine in 1553, but there was no real Protestant structure to the Church, and many people were not actual whole-hearted Protestants – merely passively accepting the new religious changes to have an easy life. The evidence that there was an uprising in 1549 shows that there was opposition to the changes, especially since England was quick to restore back to Catholicism after Edward’s death. Consequently these reasons suggest that perhaps England was not fully Protestant – only in theory, not in practise.
