Power, Control and Rebellion in Elizabethan England, Part 2

Both Henry VII and Henry VIII spent time and energy removing threats to their rule in the form of rival claimants to the throne. The Wars of the Roses may have resulted in the deaths of several generations of noble families and completely wiped out others but after 1485 there remained a number of people, both male and female, of royal blood. In reality most probably posed little or no real threat to both monarchs' power. Popular rebellion was a different matter, however, especially for Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary.

Henry VIII faced the powerful Pilgrimage of Grace based in the North East and Lincolnshire. Edward faced both the Kett and Western Rebellions in 1549 and Mary faced the Wyatt Rebellion in 1554. All of these were heavily driven by religious opposition to the crown's policy at the time though it would be fair to state that economic difficulties might have had an impact too. These rebellions were led and composed of gentry (in some cases) yeoman farmers and labourers - ordinary people in short. None of these was supported, openly by nobility, though the Pilgrimage of Grace was supported by the Earl of Northumberland's younger brothers. Indeed the nobility sided with the crown and helped suppress the revolts. Perhaps the only exception to this was The Duke of Northumberland's attempt to prevent Mary from taking the throne in 1553.

Compare this to the rebellions against the crown from 1455 to 1485 (the core period of the Wars of the Roses). During the 15th Century the rebellions were led by powerful nobles whose power could command the loyalty of lesser nobility and the gentry. The ordinary people did not get involved except where they were recruited into the relatively small armies of the period to fight for one faction or the other. The power of a very small number of nobles was sufficient to challenge, control and even and overthrow the ruling monarch on several occasions. During the reigns of all the Tudors before Elizabeth no rebellion was really supported by the nobility in this way.

Elizabeth I, however, faced 2, potentially serious rebellions against her rule in England. The first was the Revolt of the Northern Earls in 1569 and the second was the Revolt of Essex in 1601. Although both of these have in common the fact that they were led by powerful nobles (the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland in 1569 and the Earl of Essex in 1601) at face value they have little else in common other than they were unsuccessful. In 1569 the rebellion was ostensibly religiously motivated and had strong local popular support, the rebels wanted to remove Elizabeth from the throne and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots and reinstate Catholicism as the official religion. In 1601, Essex wanted to dominate and control the queen and in so doing defeat his enemies at court and in the Privy Council.

In reality they had more in common. In both cases the nobles involved felt isolated from the centre of power and that their advice was being ignored or not even sought. As powerful nobles they felt it was their right to have the monarch consider their advice. Worse, in each case they felt they had been overlooked in the matter of important offices. The Percy Earl of Northumberland was aggrieved that he had not be given his family's traditional role in running the North of England. In the case of Essex, he had been stripped of certain monopolies, banished from court, suspended from the Privy Council and his role as Master of Ordnance. The details are different from the 15th Century, but the sentiments behind the rebellions in the minds of the nobles involved and their need for security through power are not.

What is most noteworthy then, is why the two potentially dangerous rebellions faced by Elizabeth failed, when similar rebellions a century previously had succeeded. What had changed?