You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Rising of the Northern Earls in the autumn of 1569 is one of the pivotal episodes of the whole Tudor century, and it looks two ways at once. Looking backwards, it was the last of its kind: the final occasion on which great magnates raised their tenants and affinities in armed revolt against the crown, the last gasp of the feudal, baronial rebellion that had haunted English kings for centuries. Looking forwards, it inaugurated the most dangerous phase of Elizabeth's reign — the long confrontation with the Catholic threat at home and abroad, the sequence of conspiracies around Mary, Queen of Scots, the papal excommunication of the queen, and the slide toward war with Spain. The rising itself was, in military terms, a failure — perhaps 6,000 men who dispersed before the royal army without a pitched battle. But its significance vastly exceeds its scale, because it marks the moment when the taming of the northern nobility was completed, and the moment when the Catholic question moved to the centre of English politics for a generation.
This lesson is a close study of the Northern Rising of 1569 and of the Catholic threat it opened. It analyses the rising's causes — the entangled religious, political, and factional grievances of the northern earls; its course, from the earls' hesitant mobilisation through the restoration of the Mass in Durham to the collapse before the crown's forces and the ferocious reprisals that followed; and its significance, both as the last feudal revolt and as the prelude to the plots of the 1570s and 1580s (Ridolfi, Throckmorton, Babington) and the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis of 1570. It develops the source-analysis skill (AO2) that Paper 3 rewards on the aspects in depth — the critical reading of contemporary material by provenance, tone, purpose, and content in context — through a worked exemplar on two representative source-types. And it uses the rising to probe a central question: how serious, in reality, was the Catholic threat to Elizabeth — a genuine danger of Catholic revolution, or a menace the regime exaggerated for its own purposes?
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 3, Option 31: "Rebellion and disorder under the Tudors, 1485–1603" — a study of themes in breadth with aspects in depth. The Northern Rising and the Catholic threat form one of the specified aspects in depth, and on it the paper rewards the close analysis of contemporary source material (AO2) alongside secure knowledge and analytical argument (AO1).
Because this is one of the paper's aspects in depth, the examiner expects fine-grained mastery of the episode and, above all, the ability to interrogate contemporary evidence rather than accept it at face value. (For the exact assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
The rising of 1569 grew out of a collision between the traditional world of the northern nobility and the increasingly southern, Protestant, and centralising regime of Elizabeth I. The far North — the counties of Durham, Northumberland, Westmorland, and the borders — was a region apart: distant from London, economically marginal, deeply conservative in religion, and dominated by great aristocratic houses whose authority over their tenants and clients was quasi-military and rooted in centuries of local lordship. The two greatest of these houses were the Percies, in the person of Thomas Percy, Earl of Northumberland, and the Nevilles, in the person of Charles Neville, Earl of Westmorland. In the old order, such magnates had been the natural rulers of the North, governing in the crown's name but also in their own right.
Under Elizabeth, that world was being steadily eroded. The Elizabethan regime was Protestant, and its Religious Settlement of 1559 imposed a reformed church on a region where the old faith remained strong. Its instruments of government in the North — above all the Council of the North, now increasingly staffed by men who were not the great local magnates — were bypassing and diminishing the traditional aristocracy. And the crown's patronage flowed to newer men, above all to Sir William Cecil, the queen's principal secretary, whom the old nobility regarded as a low-born upstart directing the queen against their interests and their faith. The earls of the North found themselves, by the late 1560s, a declining power in their own country: their religion under attack, their local authority diminished, their access to royal favour blocked. It was this sense of a world being taken from them, sharpened by a specific political crisis, that drove them to revolt.
The specific spark for the rising was the presence in England of Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary had fled to England in 1568 after her deposition in Scotland, and her arrival created an acute political problem, because to English Catholics she was the legitimate heir — or even, in the eyes of some, the rightful queen — and a Catholic alternative around whom disaffection could crystallise. In 1569 a scheme took shape at court to marry Mary to the Duke of Norfolk, England's premier peer, a plan that had the support of a broad group of nobles who hoped it would settle the succession and restore their own influence. When Elizabeth learned of the scheme and reacted with fury, Norfolk lost his nerve and submitted, but the northern earls, who had been drawn into the wider disaffection, were left dangerously exposed. Summoned to court to explain themselves and fearing arrest, Northumberland and Westmorland were pushed — hesitantly, and against the will of at least one of them — into open revolt in November 1569. The rising was thus in part a reaction to the failure of the Norfolk marriage scheme and to the earls' fear of the consequences, as much as a premeditated Catholic crusade.
As with every great Tudor rising, the causes of 1569 were mixed, and the analytical task is to weigh them. Three strands entwined.
Religion was the rising's most public and unifying grievance. The earls and many of their followers were committed Catholics who resented the Elizabethan Settlement and longed for the restoration of the old faith. The most dramatic act of the rising made this plain: at Durham Cathedral, the rebels tore up the English Bible and the communion table, and restored the Catholic Mass — a vivid, symbolic assertion that the rising was a revolt for the old religion. The rebels' banners bore the Five Wounds of Christ, the same emblem the Pilgrimage of Grace had carried in 1536, consciously linking their cause to the great Catholic rising of a generation before. For the commons who followed the earls, religion was very likely the deepest motive, and the restoration of the Mass the truest expression of what they rose for.
Politically, the rising was bound up with the question of Mary Stuart and the succession, and with the hope of overturning the direction of Elizabeth's government. The deeper aim of the disaffected — though the earls' own intentions were confused and divided — pointed toward freeing Mary, settling her marriage to Norfolk, and thereby securing a Catholic succession and displacing the Protestant, Cecilian regime. In the classic loyalist idiom, the rebels professed loyalty to Elizabeth while attacking her "evil counsellors," above all Cecil, whom they blamed for the religious changes and their own eclipse. The rising was, in this dimension, a bid to reverse the political and confessional revolution of the previous decade.
Beneath religion and high politics lay the factional and feudal grievance of a declining aristocracy. The Percies and Nevilles were great magnates whose local power, wealth, and standing had been diminished by the centralising, Protestant regime and by the rise of new men. The rising was, in part, the last stand of an old baronial order defending its position — a reaction to the loss of local authority, the diminution of the affinity, and the exclusion from royal favour. This is why 1569 is so often called the last feudal rebellion: it was led by magnates who could still, just, raise their tenants and clients in the old way, in defence of a threatened aristocratic world.
The analytical heart of the rising is that these causes fused but sat uneasily together. Religion unified the rebels and gave the rising its symbols; the Mary Stuart question gave it its political aim; and the grievances of a declining aristocracy gave it its leadership. But the fusion was less complete and less confident than in 1536: the earls were hesitant and divided, unsure of their aims, and pushed into revolt partly by fear. The mixed, half-hearted character of the causes helps explain the rising's feeble course.
| Stage | Detail |
|---|---|
| The earls summoned (autumn 1569) | With the Norfolk marriage scheme collapsed, Northumberland and Westmorland were summoned to court; fearing arrest and pushed by their followers, they moved toward revolt against the wishes of at least one of them |
| The rising proclaimed (November 1569) | The earls raised their standards in the North, gathering perhaps 6,000 men, mainly the tenants and clients of the great houses; the rebels professed loyalty to the queen while blaming her evil counsellors and demanding the restoration of the old religion |
| The Mass restored at Durham | The rebels entered Durham, tore up the English Bible and communion table in the cathedral, and celebrated the Catholic Mass — the defining act of the rising, asserting its religious purpose under the banner of the Five Wounds of Christ |
| The advance and hesitation | The rebels advanced southward for a time, but their aims were confused; a hoped-for move to free Mary Stuart (held further south) came to nothing, and the rising lacked a clear, decisive objective |
| The collapse (December 1569) | As the crown's forces gathered under the northern command, the rebel host — poorly led, divided, and facing superior force — dispersed without a pitched battle; the earls fled, Westmorland into exile abroad, Northumberland into Scotland (whence he was later handed over and executed) |
| The reprisals (1570) | The crown imposed exemplary punishment: around 600 to 700 rebels — mostly humble followers — were executed across the northern counties, a deliberate spectacle of royal vengeance intended to terrorise the region into obedience |
The course of the rising is a study in anticlimax. A revolt that opened with the dramatic restoration of the Mass at Durham, led by two of the greatest magnates of the realm, dispersed within weeks before the royal army without ever giving battle. The contrast with the Pilgrimage of Grace, which had forced the crown to negotiate, could hardly be sharper — and that contrast is the key to the rising's larger meaning.
The failure of a revolt led by such powerful magnates, in a region so conservative, demands explanation. Several factors combined.
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Hesitant and divided leadership | The earls were pushed into revolt partly by fear, were unsure of their aims, and were divided among themselves; a rising without confident, united leadership and a clear objective could not sustain itself |
| The tamed North | The magnate power that had raised tens of thousands in 1536 had been eroded over three decades; the earls could raise only ~6,000, a fraction of the Pilgrimage, evidence that the feudal military capacity of the northern aristocracy was already broken |
| No release of Mary Stuart | The rising's most promising political aim — freeing Mary — was never achieved; she was held securely further south and moved to safety, depriving the rebels of the figurehead who might have transformed their cause |
| Superior royal force and the loyalty of most nobles | The crown gathered a superior army, and the great majority of the nobility stayed loyal; the rebels faced overwhelming force with narrow support |
| No foreign intervention | Hopes of Spanish or papal assistance came to nothing in time; the rising was left isolated |
| The loyalist constraint | Even here the rebels professed loyalty to Elizabeth and attacked her counsellors rather than the queen; the familiar limit on Tudor revolt applied, and the rising lacked the ruthless clarity of purpose that deposition would have required |
The decisive underlying factor is the tamed North. That two of the greatest magnates in England could raise only 6,000 men, and that those men dispersed without a battle, is the clearest possible evidence that the independent military power of the northern aristocracy — so formidable in 1536 — had been fundamentally reduced. The rising failed not chiefly through bad luck but because the world that made such risings possible was already passing away.
The significance of 1569 is twofold, and both dimensions are essential.
First, it was the last great feudal rebellion in English history — the final occasion on which magnates raised their affinities against the crown. Its failure completed the taming of the northern nobility: in its aftermath the Percy and Neville power was broken, the estates of the rebel earls were forfeited, and the Council of the North was reinvigorated under the presidency of the Earl of Huntingdon, bringing the once-autonomous North firmly under Westminster's control. The comparison with 1536 is the sharpest single measure of the transformation of Tudor England: the 30,000–40,000 of the Pilgrimage against the 6,000 of 1569, the crown forced to negotiate against the crown able to disperse the rising without a battle. After 1569, the over-mighty subject was no longer a serious threat to the Tudor state.
Second, the rising opened the most dangerous phase of the Catholic threat to Elizabeth. Its immediate consequence was to provoke Rome: in 1570, Pope Pius V issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicating Elizabeth and, in effect, absolving her Catholic subjects of their allegiance — a decree that transformed the position of English Catholics, making loyalty to the queen and loyalty to their faith appear incompatible, and providing a pretext for further conspiracy. There followed the sequence of plots that dominated the 1570s and 1580s, all centring on Mary Stuart: the Ridolfi Plot (1571), which drew in Norfolk and led to his execution in 1572; the Throckmorton Plot (1583); and the Babington Plot (1586), whose exposure by Walsingham sealed Mary's execution in 1587. The rising of 1569 was the first act of this long confrontation, and the trigger for the hardening of the penal laws and the intensification of the security state that defined the later reign.
The historiography of 1569 turns on two questions: the character and significance of the rising itself, and the seriousness of the Catholic threat it opened.
| Historian | Interpretation (paraphrased) | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| K.J. Kesselring (The Northern Rebellion of 1569, 2007) | The definitive modern study; stresses the rising's religious character and the genuine grievances of the North, while analysing the crown's use of ferocious reprisal and propaganda to master the region and impose its narrative | The authoritative account; balances the rebels' motives against the state's calculated response |
| Anthony Fletcher & Diarmaid MacCulloch (Tudor Rebellions) | Read 1569 as the last feudal rebellion — a rising of declining magnates fusing religion, the Mary Stuart question, and aristocratic grievance — whose failure marks the end of baronial revolt | The essential framework; sets the rising in the long decline of magnate power |
| Penry Williams | Emphasised the rising's place in the taming of the North and the subsequent strengthening of royal government through the reinvigorated Council of the North | Situates 1569 within the broader growth of Tudor order |
| John Bossy (on the Catholic community) | Distinguished a Catholicism of survival — quiet, household-based continuity of the old faith — from a Catholicism of mission and politics; most Catholics sought only to practise their faith, not to overthrow the state | Central to assessing the threat: it suggests the political danger came from a minority, not the Catholic community as a whole |
| Christopher Haigh | Stressed the resilience and scale of surviving Catholicism, especially in the conservative North, against a "quick Reformation" reading | Reinforces the reality of the Catholic constituency the rising drew on, while not implying it was uniformly seditious |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.