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 year 1549 was the most rebellious of the entire Tudor century. Across the summer, disorder flared in a swathe of counties, but two risings stand out as the great case studies of the age: the Western (Prayer Book) Rising in Devon and Cornwall, and Kett's Rebellion in Norfolk. What makes 1549 so instructive is that these two great rebellions, breaking out almost simultaneously under the same weak minority government, had almost opposite causes — the Western Rising a conservative religious protest against the imposition of the new English Prayer Book, Kett's an economic and agrarian protest against enclosure and the abuses of landlords. Set side by side they demonstrate, with unusual clarity, the two great engines of Tudor popular revolt — faith and hunger — and the different ways a beleaguered regime responded to each. Together they exposed the fatal weakness of the Duke of Somerset's Protectorate and helped bring it down.
This lesson is a close study of the twin risings of 1549: the causes, course, and significance of the Western Rising, and of Kett's Rebellion, analysed comparatively so that their differences illuminate the whole theme. 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 striking orderliness of Kett's rebels, who held their own courts and sought legal redress rather than the overthrow of the social order, to confront the historiographical question of whether the Tudor commons possessed a sophisticated political culture of their own.
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 1549 risings are among the specified aspects in depth, and on them the paper rewards the close analysis of contemporary source material (AO2) alongside secure knowledge and analytical argument (AO1).
Because these are aspects in depth, the examiner expects fine-grained command of both risings 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.)
Both risings must be set against the weakness of the government that faced them. Edward VI was nine at his accession in 1547, and real power lay with his uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, as Lord Protector. Somerset's regime was idealistic but maladroit: it pursued an expensive and counter-productive war in Scotland, drove the Reformation forward at a pace that alarmed the conservative regions, and — fatally — signalled sympathy for the grievances of the rural poor through the enclosure commissions under John Hales (1548–49). This raised expectations Somerset could not satisfy and made him appear complicit in disorder. When rebellion came in 1549, a minority government with a divided council, an empty treasury, and troops committed to Scotland was peculiarly ill-placed to meet it. The twin risings did not merely test Somerset; they destroyed him.
The first great rising erupted in the conservative far South-West, and its cause was overwhelmingly religious. The First Book of Common Prayer, imposed by the Act of Uniformity on Whitsunday, 9 June 1549, replaced the familiar Latin Mass with an English liturgy — and in Cornwall, where many parishioners spoke Cornish rather than English, the new service was doubly alien. The assault on traditional worship in a deeply conservative region provoked immediate and violent resistance.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Cause | Overwhelmingly religious: rejection of the new English Prayer Book and the assault on the Latin Mass and traditional ceremony, in a conservative and partly Cornish-speaking region |
| Demands | Restoration of the Latin Mass, the Act of Six Articles, communion in one kind, and traditional ceremonies; the rebels famously derided the new English service as "but like a Christmas game" |
| Course | Perhaps 6,000 rebels besieged Exeter for several weeks over the summer of 1549 |
| Suppression | Lord Russell, reinforced by foreign mercenaries, broke the rising in a series of engagements; thousands were killed in the fighting and the reprisals that followed |
The Western Rising is the clearest demonstration in the whole century that religious change imposed "from above" could provoke violent popular resistance. It was a conservative revolt — a defence of the old ways against innovation — and its brutal suppression, with foreign mercenaries and heavy loss of life, showed the lengths to which even a weak government would go to enforce the Reformation. Its failure, like that of the Pilgrimage before it, revealed the limits of religiously-conservative revolt in the face of a determined crown.
Simultaneously, and for almost opposite reasons, a very different and even larger rising erupted in Norfolk. Its cause was overwhelmingly economic and agrarian, and its leader was a man from the very class the rebels attacked: Robert Kett, a prosperous tanner and minor landowner who turned against his own class's abuses.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Cause | Overwhelmingly economic and agrarian: enclosure, overstocking of commons, rack-renting, and the abuse of manorial ("foldcourse") rights by landlords — a demand for agrarian justice |
| Leadership | Robert Kett, a prosperous Norfolk tanner and landowner who took up the commons' cause against the gentry |
| Course | Perhaps 16,000 rebels encamped on Mousehold Heath above Norwich and took the city — England's second-largest — holding it for several weeks |
| The Mousehold Articles | A set of 29 articles demanding curbs on enclosure and gentry exploitation, the reform of corrupt local officials, and the protection of tenant rights |
| Orderliness | The rising was strikingly disciplined: the rebels held their own courts under the "Oak of Reformation", maintained order, and sought legal redress and good governance — not the overthrow of the social order |
| Suppression | The Earl of Warwick (John Dudley) crushed the camp at the Battle of Dussindale (August 1549) with professional troops including foreign mercenaries; Kett was hanged at Norwich Castle |
The most striking feature of Kett's Rebellion is its orderliness. This was no anarchic jacquerie: the rebels ran an ordered camp, dispensed a kind of justice under the Oak of Reformation, and framed their Mousehold Articles as a programme of reform and good governance. They did not seek to overturn the social hierarchy but to make it just — to hold landlords to customary obligations and curb their abuses. This disciplined, "commonwealth"-minded character is central to the modern historiography and to the debate over the political culture of the commons.
The analytical value of 1549 lies in the contrast between the two great risings, which is why the examiner rewards comparative treatment. Set side by side, they illuminate the two great engines of Tudor revolt:
| Feature | Western (Prayer Book) Rising | Kett's Rebellion |
|---|---|---|
| Region | Devon and Cornwall (conservative far South-West) | Norfolk (commercialised, more Protestant East) |
| Dominant cause | Religious — defence of the old faith against the Prayer Book | Economic/agrarian — enclosure, rack-renting, foldcourse abuses |
| Character | Conservative — a defence of tradition against innovation | Reformist — a demand to make the social order just |
| Attitude to religious change | Rejected the Reformation | Broadly accepted the Protestant changes (a Protestant chaplain preached in the camp) |
| Scale | ~6,000 (besieged Exeter) | ~16,000 (took Norwich) |
| Suppression | Lord Russell, with mercenaries | Warwick, at Dussindale, with mercenaries |
The contrast is instructive on several levels. It shows that the geography of revolt tracked the geography of religion and economy: the conservative West rose for the old faith, the commercialised East for agrarian justice. It shows that "rebellion in 1549" was not one phenomenon but two, with almost opposite motivations — a warning against treating a rebellious year as a single movement. And it shows the different faces of the mid-Tudor crisis: religious reaction in one region, socio-economic protest in another, both bearing down on a government too weak to manage either. A strong answer never blurs the two together; it uses their difference to make its argument.
Despite their scale, both risings failed, and for the familiar Tudor reasons — with one important nuance in Kett's case.
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Military inferiority | Both risings were destroyed by professional troops stiffened by foreign mercenaries — the Western rebels by Russell, Kett's at Dussindale by Warwick; amateur rebels could not stand against them |
| Geographical isolation | Each rising was regional and did not combine; the two great risings of 1549, at opposite ends of the country, never joined forces, which would have been catastrophic for the regime |
| The limits of loyalism | Both professed loyalty to the young king and blamed his advisers or the local gentry; they sought redress, not deposition, and could be met with a mixture of negotiation and force |
| Government resolve (eventually) | Once Somerset's hesitation gave way to Warwick's decisiveness, the crown committed the force needed to crush the risings without compromise |
Kett's Rebellion adds a nuance to the usual pattern: its very orderliness and its faith in legal redress may have contributed to its failure, since the rebels waited on negotiation and pardon rather than pressing a military advantage — a form of the loyalist trap that also doomed the Pilgrimage. Andy Wood has emphasised that the commons' belief in the law and in good governance was genuine, but it left them vulnerable to a government that could offer talks while gathering an army. The rebels' restraint was a mark of their political culture; it was also, in the end, a weakness.
The twin risings of 1549 exposed Somerset's fundamental weakness and precipitated his fall. His public sympathy for anti-enclosure grievances — the Hales commissions — had raised hopes he could not meet and made him appear complicit in disorder, while his slowness to repress alarmed the propertied classes on whose loyalty the regime depended. Diarmaid MacCulloch has argued that Somerset's well-meaning populism actively encouraged rebellion by signalling that the regime shared the commons' complaints. It was this loss of elite confidence, more than the risings themselves, that brought Somerset down in October 1549, when Warwick and the council moved against him. The man who crushed Kett — Warwick, soon Duke of Northumberland — emerged as the new master of the regime. The significance of 1549 thus extends far beyond the risings: they were the hinge on which the mid-Tudor government turned, and the clearest evidence that a minority regime that lost the confidence of the propertied classes could not survive.
More broadly, 1549 is a central exhibit in the debate over whether there was a genuine "mid-Tudor crisis." The eruption of two massive risings in a single summer, under a divided minority government with an empty treasury, looks like systemic strain. Yet the fact that both were suppressed, that the succession held, and that Warwick's regime then restored order and finances has led revisionists to argue that the state, though severely tested, did not break down. The 1549 risings are the sharpest test of that argument.
The historiography of 1549, and of Kett's especially, has become the flagship case for the recovery of a popular political culture among the Tudor commons.
| Historian | Interpretation (paraphrased) | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Andy Wood (The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England, 2007) | The commons possessed a sophisticated political culture — a developed sense of customary rights, law, and "commonwealth" — and rebelled deliberately and in an orderly way to defend it; Kett's camp was its supreme expression | The modern standard; recovers the commons as conscious political actors |
| Anthony Fletcher & Diarmaid MacCulloch (Tudor Rebellions) | The 1549 risings had opposite causes (religious in the West, agrarian in the East) and must be analysed comparatively; Somerset's populism helped provoke them | The essential comparative framework for the twin risings |
| Diarmaid MacCulloch | Stressed Somerset's responsibility — his sympathy for anti-enclosure grievance raised hopes and signalled weakness, encouraging revolt and precipitating his own fall | Persuasive on the political consequences; links the risings to the fall of the Protectorate |
| G.W. Bernard | Has questioned how far the mid-Tudor period was a true "crisis," stressing the resilience of government and the limits of the risings' threat | A valuable corrective to the "crisis" thesis; the risings were serious but contained |
The decisive AO3 development for this aspect is Andy Wood's recovery of the commons' political culture. The orderliness of Kett's camp — the courts under the Oak of Reformation, the reasoned Mousehold Articles, the appeal to law and good governance — is, on Wood's reading, not incidental but the point: it reveals a commons that thought politically, understood their customary rights, and rebelled to defend a vision of the "commonwealth," not as a mindless mob. This is the culmination of the shift away from the older condescension toward the "ignorant" commons, and it is the interpretation a strong answer on Kett's must engage.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.