Between 1547 and 1559 England was almost torn apart by religious revolution. Assess the validity of this View (45 marks)
Between 1547 and 1559 there were two monarchs Edward VI and Mary I, with opposing religious beliefs. Religious identity was extremely important, and therefore any form of religious ‘revolution’ was going to have a great significance on the country. To answer the question, both of these monarchs and the effect they had on England must be discussed.
In 1547 Edward VI came to power and was assigned a ‘protectorate’, which was his uncle, the Duke of Somerset for the first half of his reign. Somerset was a protestant who welcomed radicals such as John Hooper and Thomas Becon into his household. He also began reforming religion in England, as shown by the book of homilies and paraphrases which he introduced in July 1547. He made it mandatory for this document to be present in every church. In December the same year the act of six articles which re-established catholic doctrines was repealed. These polices reformed religion in the direction of Protestantism along with other new additions to the religious structure of the country, such as in 1948 when Cranmer’s first prayer book led people to convert to Protestantism.
After Somerset fell from power, John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland began reforming the country. He was typically viewed as more of a conservative who supported the Privy Council, however he also felt that England needed religious reform and removed all Catholic bishops from the Privy Council such as Gardiner. In 1552 he introduced the second book f common prayer, furthering the introduction of Protestantism, which led to the removal of mass. Also in April 1552 the second act of uniformity was introduced, meaning that all clergy had to attend church or face imprisonment.
A more physical approach to the situation was also taken in addition to all these documents and acts. For example altars were replaced by communion tables and images of Roman Catholic symbolism were removed from the church. This was to ensure that these protestant changes were seen rather than enforced through laws, and make sure that the people of England had a clear idea of which was the ‘correct’ religion. More radical protestant bishops such as Hooper and Ridley were appointed showing that ‘religious revolution’ was becoming more apparent in England, and in 1552 Cranmer’s forty two articles were published, showing a more or less complete change to a protestant version of Christianity, and a protestant way of thinking.
There was a significant reaction to these changes, which can be most noticeably seen in the rebellions that took place. In 1549 full scale rebellions in response to the new prayer book broke out in East Anglia, Devon and Cornwall. This provides a strong piece of evidence for the idea that religious revolution somewhat ‘tore the country apart’. It is also reasonable to suggest that the Western and Ketts rebellion were caused by religious disturbance.
It can however, be argued that this statement is false, as by the end of Edwards reign, despite the changes that occurred, the Church had not been fully revolutionised. So the word ‘revolution’ may be slightly inaccurate in this case. Edward died in 1553 and England was still not fully protestant, demonstrated by Mary and how quickly she imposed counter changes, turning the country back to Catholicism. Therefore to some extent the supposed revolution failed, and perhaps the extent of the religious divide has been over exaggerated by historians. Although it is hard to argue that there was not unrest, the country was far from torn apart. Whilst the rebellions posed no serious threat to Edwards reign, it could be argued that Somerset’s failure to act was the main reason for their successes, and that after 1549 Northumberland did a better job of maintaining order.
The rebellions also may not have been caused by religious revolution, as many people were very unhappy about certain policies such as enclosure and taxation (for example the sheep tax of 1549). More factors were at play than religion such as contempt for the local government, and distrust between separate classes. Eamon Duffy believes that the idea of class antagonism is very important when discussing the cause of rebellions. If this were true it provides a large piece of evidence to show that religious reform had a relatively small impact, and that England was not torn apart by religious revolution. In 1553 when Mary came to power, she set about turning the country back to Catholicism. In her first Parliament she revoked much of Edwards’s legislation and later on deprived several bishops of their ‘sees’ (jurisdiction) including Hooper and Cranmer. She also created a new policy that hadn’t been seen as much in previous monarchs, execution. Under the Heresy Laws of April 1554 over three hundred Protestants were put to death at the stake. Anyone who owned illegal books were executed. This shows that perhaps a form of revolution did in fact take place under Mary, pushing the country back to Catholicism. Mary earned the nickname ‘bloody Mary’ from these burnings, but they were not the only thing which arguably caused religious revolution in her time. The Wyatt’s rebellion took place in 1554, which proved to be a more serious threat than past rebellions due to its proximity to London. It can be argued that religion played a more prominent cause in this rebellion due to the fact that many of its leaders (such as Carew, Sussex and Croft) were Protestant. The historian Robert Tittler supports this view. Despite this at the end of Marys reign the country still wasn’t fully Catholic or Protestant despite her efforts. Any form of religious revolution she may have tried to insight was not fully successful, and despite the unrest, there was a lot of stability in her reign. Even the Wyatt’s rebellion may not have been viewed as overly important by some as Mary acted swiftly in response to it. She held back appealing the Charles V knowing it would only worsen the situation and in February 1554 she made a personal appeal to the people instead. The rebellion was also smaller than the Ketts rebellion. So it could be argued that from this point of view that more stability was seen in Marys reign than Edwards.
There were some motivations for the rebellion other than religious, namely the anti-Spanish attitude from the people owing to Mary’s marriage to Phillip of Spain. It can also be argued that religious revolution is an overstatement, as many converted back to Catholicism as soon as she came to power anyway, before she had imposed any changes.
In conclusion, the claim is somewhat valid. There was a certain amount of religious unrest in both Mary and Edwards reigns, but it is impossible to say that the country was ‘torn apart’ as life was never dramatically changed for the people. The country was never fully one religion or the other, due to various reasons, such as the monarch’s lack of time to focus solely on the religion of the country. Elizabeth’s successful restoration of Protestantism, she had more time and ruled over a more religiously balanced country than Edward or Mary did when they came to power. 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 can be attributed to other factors. Overall the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘torn’ apart are too strong to describe any religious unrest which occurred in England between 1547 and 1559.