Mid Tudor Crisis Essay

How true it to say there was a mid-Tudor crisis?
(25 Marks)

There has been some debate as to whether it is true to say that during the reigns of the ‘mid-Tudor’ monarchs there was a crisis. For both Edward and Mary there were various factors that did pose problematic for them such as the threats to the Tudor dynasty through rebellions and neither having a strong heir to the throne after their deaths. Moreover, there were also factors such as finance and foreign policy that also made the crown slightly unstable as inflation continued to rise and England lost possession over French towns. However, although there is evidence to show that there was a mid-Tudor crisis, the stronger argument is that there was, in fact no crisis but a time where
the monarchs continued on the Tudor dynasty in no worse a way than any other monarch and were actually able to overcome some issues in a successful manner.

There were some issues within dynastic security that both monarchs did face during their time in power. Arguably, the most significant was that Edward was a minor and not able to rule on his own as yet as that left the crown vulnerable to usurpation. His protector Somerset that was in place to aid prevent any threats to the crown actually was a narcissistic man who was interested in self-gain and took Edward away to Windsor castle to keep control over him. However, despite Edwards’s young age, he was able to gain back control and return home and supress Somerset’s influence over him by appointing a new protector. Both monarchs died without having a husband or wife or having children which meant the crown was left, once again, vulnerable to takeover – it left a gap that many wanted to fill. Moreover, the rapid death of Edward left an unstable, unplanned future that further exposed the dynasty. During both of their reigns there were a number of rebellions – such as the Kett’s and Wyatt rebellions – that evidently did pose some threat to both monarchs. However, neither of the rebellions amounted to large uprisings and neither posed an actual threat to their place on the throne; many rebellions were initiated due to discontent (like Kett’s rebellion and the widespread unhappiness on account of enclosure) and not to target the throne itself. Lastly, during Mary’s reign there were a number of laws re-established that meant that offenses that acted against the Queen were punishable by death (the treason laws that Somerset removed). Thus, conveying how although there were a number of problems faced by both monarchs that could have potentially proved a threat to their position on the throne, they were easily supressed or overcome. At the end of both of their reigns they were both able to pass on the crown to another Tudor – and that is one of the most significant achievements in terms of dynastic security and so cannot be said that there was a mid-Tudor crisis. The financial state of England was not at its peak during the 16th century but actions were taken in order to better the economy. Throughout both Mary and Edwards reign inflation continued to rise, at what looked like at an exponential rate, and consequently the standard of living began to fall for the nation. Specifically in Edwards’s reign, Somerset did little in attempt to improve inflation rates and at the end of their reigns Mary had left the crown in £300,000 debt. However, they were not the only monarchs to leave the crown insolvent – in comparison to Henry VIII and his lavish spending of the crowns money causing inflation to have begun building up since his reign, it cannot be said that Edward and Mary caused a ‘mid-Tudor crisis’ due to this. In fact, Edward was keen to ‘balance the books’ and Mary decided to publish a new book of rates that met the current financial rates and thus took the firsts steps towards bettering the economy. Moreover, she ensured more debts were being collected so the crowns money was beginning to improve too. The loss of the two French towns Boulogne (under Edward) and Calais (under Mary) can be viewed as a humiliating defeat, however, in terms of finance it meant that less costs were paid out to the French towns in terms of garrisoning and maintenance, thus, actually proving slightly beneficial to the monarchs as it meant that there was lest expenses being made out during a time of debt and inflation. Moreover, the long-lasting war with France meant that finances also increased because there less money being spent on weapons and expensive ships. Thus, conveying how although the two Tudor monarchs were ruling during a time of debt and inflation, it was not actually them that initiated it but simply ruled during it and actually began to take steps to improve the state of the country – unlike previous monarchs such as henry VIII. Therefore, portraying how it would be untrue to state that there was a mid-Tudor crisis during the 16th century as both monarchs were keen to improve the financial state of the economy. Even though both left the crown insolvent they were not the only ones to do so and thus, would be unfair to accuse them of causing a crisis.

Arguably, the most significant event that happened during Tudor-England was the dramatic change in religion towards Protestantism of which caused unrest and upset throughout the country.
Many religious people were unhappy with the current state of the church as there were less people leaving money in their wills for the Church – only 32% of people during Edwards reign. This upset was also portrayed through the western rebellion which was defiance against the 1547 Act of Uniformity, conveying how discontent the nation were with the religion change that was continued on by Edward II. However, the rebellion didn’t amount to anything so had little achievements and was suppressed easily. Although under Edwards’s reign people were discontent, there also was a strong feeling of anticlericalism of which meant that there was an increasing amount of people in favour of the change than there had been in previous times. The fact that people were practising Protestantism conveys how there was not actually a mid-Tudor crisis due to the fact that some were content with the new religion and were happy to follow it. When Mary came to power the change back to Catholicism can be argued to have made the nation discontent due to the lack of consistency within the crown, however most were willing to embrace the religion and it was apparent that Henry received a much larger revolt a few years prior. The Wyatt rebellion started due to the disapproval of the marriage with the Catholic Prince
Phillip and was led by radical Protestants who strongly disliked the Clergy. Although this did prove some threat and can attribute towards why people may feel there is was a Tudor crisis, the rebellion did not amount to much as three out of four members did not show and thus, was easily supressed. Although some were evidently unhappy, many were in favour of Catholicism – local enthusiasm for the religion meant that large sums of money were produced to donate to conservative projects like restoring the monasteries. There was potential for crisis however between parliament and Mary as they were not happy with the rapid change back in religion, however Mary promised that she would not make such dramatic changes until everyone is satisfied, and so parliament agree on returning the monasteries and the repeal of the act of Supremacy. This conveys how the continuous changing of religion did pose a threat for a mid-Tudor crisis, but it was easily controlled and many people came to terms and accepted the current religion, thus, cannot be said that there was a mid-Tudor crisis.

Foreign policy did prove problematic for both Edward and Mary during the 16th century.
To begin with, there were strong ties between France and Scotland of which Somerset – Edwards’s protector – could not overcome, this consequently meant that cross border raids continued which had the potential for both countries to turn against England. Moreover, England was bankrupt, on account of Henry VIII, and thus Edward could not afford all the foreign policies he wished to, which meant that there was a potential for a crisis if he could not afford to form alliances or relationships with other countries if need be. Edwards’s loss of Boulogne was seen as a humiliating defeat and his small amount of influence was lost after he could not maintain the French town. Northumberland was able to negotiate an alliance between England and France which had a strong potential for peace between the two countries after years of feuds. However, not long after, Mary’s husband pressured her to have involvement with France again of which proves costly and created further debt and strain on the English economy. Moreover, similarly to Edward Mary’s loss of Calais was seen as a humiliating defeat and meant that some of her prestige was lost amongst European affairs. However, as a result of her alliance with Spain, it significantly improved the standard of the English army and meant that England was strengthened and prepared for the future – conveying how although there may be some short-term disadvantages
there was definitely long-term gains from this for Mary and England. Furthermore, the loss of Calais was not beneficial for Mary and her image but it was actually only a minor loss and, once again, proved advantageous in the long-term as it reduced the costs of maintenance and garrisoning which would have had a positive effect on her finances. Thus, collectively conveying how foreign policy did have some aspects that were disadvantageous short term and could have caused a crisis if left alone, however, both monarchs took action and some of the issues actually had a positive long-term outcome and therefore, the statement that there was a mid-Tudor crisis is untrue.