To what extent was there a crisis of government in the years 1547 to 1571? [25]
Thesis
A crisis of government is the presence of prolonged instability, a breakdown in governance, contested authority which therefore makes it difficult to enforce law and policies. During the years 1547-71, there were moments of instability, particularly due to minority rule and succession crises, but overall, the government was resilient and adaptable. Therefore, there was not a sustained or systemic crisis of government.
Crisis under Edward VI (1547–1553)
Evidence of crisis:
Somerset's rule (1547–49):
Governed through personal power as “Lord Protector”, excluding much of the Privy Council, creating resentment and isolation.
Factional rivalry: His rise came at the expense of rivals like Wriothesley and the conservatives.
Poor handling of socio-economic unrest: 1549 rebellions:
Western Rebellion (Prayer Book Rebellion): Cornwall & Devon; opposed religious reform and economic grievances.
Kett’s Rebellion (Norfolk): Motivated by enclosure, local corruption, and land grievances.
Somerset's slow and ineffective response led to a sense of government paralysis.
Government forced to rely on mercenaries and nobles’ private armies (e.g. Warwick/Northumberland) to suppress revolts — a sign of fragility.
Foreign policy chaos:
Renewed war with Scotland (1547) – Battle of Pinkie was a tactical victory but failed to prevent Mary Queen of Scots’ escape to France (1548).
Overstretched financially — huge debts, continued debasement of the coinage (1551), and inflation caused social distress.
Recovery and stability under Northumberland (1549–53):
Northumberland ousted Somerset with Privy Council support — shows the system was still functioning.
Restored balance in the Council; encouraged collective decision-making.
Ended wars with France and Scotland (Treaty of Boulogne 1550) to stabilize finances.
Reformed coinage plans (though not fully implemented); started to tackle debt.
Advanced Protestant reforms — 42 Articles (1552) and Second Book of Common Prayer (1552) showed effective religious leadership.
Judgement: Crisis of leadership and policy, not of government as an institution. The regime adapted and stabilized under Northumberland.
Mary I’s Reign (1553–1558)
Evidence of crisis:
Succession crisis (1553):
Edward's "Devise for the Succession" bypassed Mary in favor of Lady Jane Grey.
Coup failed quickly — Mary rallied support in East Anglia (notably among gentry and commoners).
Shows instability in succession but also resilience of Tudor legitimacy and regional loyalty.
Wyatt’s Rebellion (1554):
Opposition to Spanish marriage with Philip of Spain; fears of foreign influence.
Led by Sir Thomas Wyatt, reached London.
Threatened the regime — had it been better coordinated, it might have succeeded.
Showed discontent with court politics and religion but also how loyalty to monarchy prevailed.
Execution of Lady Jane Grey and arrest of Elizabeth showed Mary using state power effectively.
Religious persecution:
Marian burnings (c. 280 Protestants) drew criticism (e.g. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs).
Religious reversal via Parliament: Repeal of Edwardian laws, revival of Heresy Acts, and Papal authority restored (1555) with the help of Cardinal Pole.
Resistance was limited in scale — no major uprisings outside Wyatt.
Failure to produce an heir:
This created anxiety about another succession crisis.
Philip’s departure (1555) weakened Mary’s position.
Evidence of stability:
Government administration functioned:
Reformed revenue courts (merged Court of First Fruits into Exchequer).
Plans for recoinage laid out (implemented by Elizabeth).
Maintained effective local governance through JPs and lord lieutenants.
Judgement: Despite short-term instability, Mary controlled her regime, passed major policies through Parliament, and suppressed rebellion — not a collapse of government.
Early Elizabethan Reign
Evidence of crisis:
Religious Settlement (1559):
Elizabeth had to navigate between radical Protestants and conservative Catholics.
Act of Supremacy (restored royal supremacy) and Act of Uniformity (set Prayer Book and church attendance).
Settlement passed by only 3 votes in the Lords — shows precariousness.
Catholic plots and uprisings:
Northern Rebellion (1569):
Led by Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland.
Aimed to restore Catholicism and place Mary Queen of Scots on the throne.
Marched under religious banners; took Durham.
Crushed decisively; nobles executed and lands seized.
Ridolfi Plot (1571):
Plan to marry Mary to the Duke of Norfolk and launch a Spanish-backed invasion.
Led to execution of Norfolk and tighter control over Mary.
Papal excommunication (1570): Regnans in Excelsis declared Elizabeth illegitimate — encouraged Catholics to rebel.
Raised fears of foreign invasion and increased domestic surveillance.
Evidence of stability:
Privy Council under Cecil was effective, streamlined, and loyal.
Elizabeth used Parliament tactically — managed succession questions and controlled debates.
Passed penal laws to target recusants (e.g. fines for non-attendance at church).
Council and Parliament worked together to defend the Elizabethan regime from external and internal threats.
Judgement: Serious challenges, but not a breakdown. The Elizabethan state responded quickly and strongly, showing maturity and cohesion.
Conclusion
While the years 1547 to 1571 witnessed significant political and religious upheaval — including a royal minority, rebellions, disputed successions, and major religious transformations — these events did not amount to a sustained crisis of government. Although there were moments of acute instability, particularly during Edward VI’s minority and Mary I’s succession, the essential structures of Tudor governance remained intact. The monarchy continued to assert authority, the Privy Council adapted and evolved into a more professional body, and Parliament was used effectively to legitimise policy. Under Elizabeth I, government proved especially resilient, navigating threats like the Northern Rebellion and foreign Catholic plots with decisiveness and political skill. Therefore, while there were crises within government, there was no fundamental or enduring crisis of government. The Tudor regime proved both flexible and durable in the face of challenge.