Mid-Tudor Crisis - Revisionist Counter-Interpretation

Revisionist Counter-Interpretation

In recent decades revisionist historians, most notably David Loades, have proposed a new interpretation which almost completely reverses the traditional mid-Tudor crisis thesis:

• Definition of 'Crisis'

The crux of their argument focuses around the definition of the word 'crisis'. They argue that for England to be in a state of crisis, the essential machinery of the state (the Privy Council, Justices of the Peace, revenue courts and Parliament) would have to be in imminent danger of collapse. In fact, they argue, the state machinery survived intact.

• Strength of Central Authority

The failure of the 'coups' of Somerset and Northumberland demonstrates that the state and the institution of the monarchy were strong enough to survive short-time political drama. The danger posed by factions is also limited, since disputes rarely spilled out of the Council itself and destabilised government or society at large.

• Continuity within the Period

Central government was further strengthened by continuity within the period, as key personnel, including Thomas Gresham, William Paget, William Herbert and William Cecil, remained in office throughout.

• Continuity and Comparison with other Periods

Firstly, elements of continuity with other periods limit the extent to which the mid-Tudor years are in any way unique. The religious and economic strife of the period had deeper roots than traditionalists have suggested, and are in no way particular to this period. Furthermore, when this period is compared with other periods the scale of the problems faced seems limited. The cloth crisis of 1551/2, for example, was dwarfed by the agrarian crisis of 1596-8. The Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536 was far more serious than the rebellions of 1549 (the Western Rebellion and Kett's Rebellion) and 1554 (Wyatt's Rebellion). Lastly, the Spanish Armada posed a greater threat than the French and Scottish wars of this period.

• Scale of the Problems Faced

Not only should the problems be put in the context of those faced in conterminous periods, but even in their own right they did not pose a great threat to the safety of the state. The scale of two problems in particular must be re-examined:

• • Economy

  While the Phelps Brown and other price indexes suggest a severe deterioration in the state of the economy, they only consider the fortunes of agriculture (despite this period being notable as the beginnings of industrialisation in England, they ignore the fact that wages were often received in kind, and they ignore the decline in the number of holidays as a result of the introduction of Protestantism and its abhorrence for the veneration of saints. Thus, while statistically the economy may have been struggling, the lives of ordinary English citizens were not as adversely affected as might seem.

  • Rebellions

  The inherently conservative nature of all three rebellions, but particularly those of 1549, is emphasised, as is their protagonists' focus on local issues and avowed subservience to Edward VI (cries of "God Save the King" were heard among the Kett rebels in August 1549). The class antagonisms underlying the rebellions are considered to be exaggerated, and, in any case, what antagonisms existed merely weakened the rebellions. On a practical level, the rebellions were marred by chaos and blunder. They never, then, in any way directly challenged the state.

• Achievements and Strengths of the Rulers

It cannot be denied that Edward VI was a relatively weak monarch, but the consequence of this weakness was that during his reign England was effectively ruled by Somerset and Northumberland, and both these men were not as ineffective as was once held to be the case; in particular, Northumberland provided effective rule given the context in which he operated. Mary's failures were by no means inevitable, reflecting bad luck and a lack of time rather than an inherent weakness as a monarch. The fact that there were no civil wars during this period, that Parliament survived, that England remained independent, and that important reforms in finance and administration were undertaken which laid the basis for the late Tudor state, suggests that the rulers of this period provided reasonably effective rule.