You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
When Henry VIII died on 28 January 1547 he left the throne to a boy of nine and the government to a regency he had tried, and failed, to freeze in place. The eleven years that followed — the reigns of Edward VI (1547–1553) and Mary I (1553–1558) — were for a long time written off as the sagging middle of the Tudor century: a "mid-Tudor crisis" of feeble rulers, factional coups, lurching religious reversals, monetary chaos, and serious popular rebellion. This lesson takes the first half of that story — the reign of Edward VI — and asks how far the label "crisis" actually fits. Real power in these years lay not with the boy-king but with two successive strongmen who governed in his name: Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector from 1547 to 1549, and John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who ousted him and ruled as Lord President of the Council until Edward's death. Under their direction the official religion of England was driven from the conservative Catholicism-without-the-Pope of Henry's last years to a fully Reformed Protestantism, in the teeth of rebellion.
The Edwardian period is a proving ground for one of the great debates of this course. The older view, associated with the historian W.R.D. Jones, saw something close to systemic breakdown: minority rule, a debased coinage, galloping inflation, the twin rebellions of 1549, and a naked coup over the succession in 1553. Against this a powerful revisionist current — Jennifer Loach, David Loades, and others — has argued that the institutions of government went on working, that both Somerset and (especially) Northumberland pursued serious reform, and that a state which managed the peaceful succession of three monarchs in eleven years is a strange sort of collapse. Our task is not to memorise a verdict but to learn how to weigh these readings against the evidence of minority government, religious change, rebellion, and the succession crisis.
The organising question is this: did the reign of Edward VI reveal a Tudor state in genuine crisis — of government, religion, and social order — or a resilient polity that absorbed severe strain without breaking down? Holding that question open, rather than settling it in advance, is what an examiner rewards; the reign supplies evidence on both sides, and the discriminating answer specifies in what respect and to what degree the "crisis" reading holds.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors. Within the unit, Y107 is examined in two distinct ways, and this lesson feeds both:
Because Y107 is a period study, examiners look for command of developments across the whole span rather than isolated episodes; keep asking how each change altered the reach and stability of royal authority. Our teaching sequence groups the reign around government, religion, rebellion, and succession — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson opens the government and religion threads that run the length of the course and lead directly into the Marian restoration of Lesson 2.
The central fact of Edward VI's reign is that the king never ruled. He was nine at his accession and fifteen at his death, and throughout he was a minor in whose name others governed. Tudor political culture had no settled machinery for minority rule; the memory of the fifteenth-century minority of Henry VI — which had ended in faction, misgovernment, and civil war — hung over the whole period. This is the deep structural weakness of the Edwardian years, and it explains much of what follows: with no adult king to arbitrate, authority flowed to whoever could dominate the Council and control access to the boy.
Henry VIII had tried to prevent exactly this. His will provided for a Regency Council of sixteen executors, balanced between religious conservatives and reformers, who were to govern collectively until Edward came of age, with no single Protector. The arrangement lasted barely days.
| Feature of Henry's settlement | What happened in practice |
|---|---|
| A balanced Regency Council of sixteen executors ruling collectively | Within days Edward Seymour, the king's maternal uncle, secured the sole Protectorship |
| No single Protector, to prevent over-mighty rule | Seymour took the title Duke of Somerset and Lord Protector, concentrating power in one pair of hands |
| Conservatives and reformers held in equilibrium | The reformers gained the ascendancy; the conservative Bishop Gardiner was excluded and later imprisoned |
| The "unfulfilled gifts" clause used to reward the executors | A wave of promotions (the "dry stamp" arrangements) bound the leading men to the new regime |
The speed of Somerset's coup is itself a lesson in how Tudor authority actually worked. Formal rules mattered less than the informal reality that power came from proximity to the monarch's person and control of the Council. Somerset's kinship to the king, his military prestige, and his command of the machinery of the court let him brush aside a will that had been meant to bind him. This is change and continuity in miniature: the rules of authority changed abruptly at Henry's death, but the grammar of authority — power through access and faction — did not.
Somerset governed for two and a half years, and his rule is the classic case for the prosecution in the "crisis" debate. He was, on the traditional reading, high-handed, financially reckless, and politically maladroit; on a more sympathetic reading he was an idealist undone by the sheer difficulty of his inheritance. Both readings agree that by October 1549 he had lost the confidence of the political elite and was overthrown.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Title and style | Lord Protector of the Realm and Governor of the King's Person; he increasingly bypassed the Council and ruled through his own household and a private secretariat, alienating fellow councillors who resented their exclusion |
| Character | Idealistic but arrogant and aloof; he cultivated a reputation as the "Good Duke," a friend to the common people, which flattered his self-image and inflamed his rivals |
| Scottish policy | He won the Battle of Pinkie (10 September 1547) but his strategy of garrisoning Scotland to force the marriage of Edward to Mary Queen of Scots — the so-called "Rough Wooing" — was ruinously expensive and drove the Scots into a French alliance; the infant Mary was shipped to France to be raised as bride to the Dauphin |
| Social policy | A genuine, if sentimental, sympathy for the rural poor; he backed enclosure commissions under John Hales (1548–49) that raised expectations he had no means to satisfy |
| Fatal weakness | His autocratic style, his costly wars, and his apparent encouragement of popular grievance cost him the trust of the propertied classes — the constituency on which any Tudor regime ultimately depended |
Enclosure — the fencing-off of formerly open or common land by landlords, often to run more profitable sheep — was the great agrarian grievance of the mid-century, blamed (not always fairly) for depopulation, rack-renting, and rural distress. Somerset's decision to be seen to sympathise with the anti-enclosure cause was politically catastrophic: it convinced the commons that the government was on their side, and convinced the gentry that the government was against them. When rebellion came in 1549, Somerset was distrusted by both.
Somerset's religious policy was cautious in pace but unmistakable in direction: a real, legislated move toward Protestantism, largely steered by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, the theological architect of the English Reformation.
| Reform | Detail |
|---|---|
| Repeal of the Six Articles (1547) | Swept away Henry's conservative heresy code, removing the legal scaffolding of Catholic orthodoxy and opening the door to reform |
| Chantries Act (1547) | Dissolved the chantries, confiscating the endowments that funded masses for the dead — simultaneously a revenue grab and a doctrinal assault on the doctrine of purgatory |
| First Book of Common Prayer (1549) | Imposed by the Act of Uniformity (1549); replaced the Latin Mass with an English liturgy, chiefly Cranmer's work, but deliberately ambiguous on the Eucharist so as to soften the shock of change |
| Clerical marriage permitted (1549) | Reversed the rule of priestly celibacy — an unambiguously Protestant step |
| Attack on images and ceremonies | Royal Injunctions ordered the removal of "superstitious" images, candles, and processions from the parish church |
A chantry was an endowment paying a priest to say masses for the souls of a founder and their kin, speeding them through purgatory. Their dissolution was doctrinally radical — a public repudiation of purgatory, the theological engine of late-medieval piety — and it had a social cost too, since many chantry endowments also funded schools and almshouses that were swept away with them. The First Prayer Book's calculated vagueness is worth dwelling on: by wording the communion so that a conservative could still hear an echo of the old Mass while a reformer heard a memorial, Cranmer bought a measure of outward acceptance. But vagueness that placates can also provoke: to committed Catholics in the conservative South-West, even this softened liturgy was an intolerable assault on the Mass, and it lit the fuse of the Western Rising.
The year 1549 saw two large and roughly simultaneous rebellions, in different regions and for opposite reasons. Getting the contrast right is one of the most important analytical skills for this topic: the two risings are frequently, and wrongly, blurred together, when in fact they are near mirror-images — one overwhelmingly religious, the other overwhelmingly economic.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Trigger | The imposition of the new English Prayer Book on Whitsunday (9 June) 1549; in Cornwall many parishioners spoke Cornish and understood neither the old Latin nor the new English, and across Devon and Cornwall the abolition of the familiar Latin Mass was bitterly resented |
| Demands | Restoration of the Latin Mass, the Act of Six Articles, communion in one kind, and the old ceremonies; the rebels famously derided the new English service as "but like a Christmas game" |
| Scale | Perhaps 6,000 rebels besieged Exeter for several weeks |
| Suppression | Lord Russell, reinforced by foreign mercenaries, broke the rising; thousands died in the fighting and the reprisals |
| Significance | The clearest proof that religious change imposed "from above" could provoke violent resistance "from below" — a fundamentally religious revolt, evidence of how Catholic much of the realm remained after a decade of change |
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Leader | Robert Kett, a prosperous Norfolk tanner and minor landowner — a man of property who turned against the abuses of his own class |
| Cause | Overwhelmingly economic and agrarian: enclosure, the overstocking of commons, rack-renting, and landlords' abuse of manorial "foldcourse" rights |
| Character | Strikingly orderly and legalistic: the rebels held their own courts under the "Oak of Reformation," kept discipline, and sought lawful redress and good governance, not social revolution |
| Scale | Perhaps 16,000 rebels encamped on Mousehold Heath above Norwich and took the city |
| Demands | The Mousehold Articles (29 articles): curbs on enclosure and gentry exploitation, reform of corrupt local officials, and protection of tenant rights |
| Suppression | John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, crushed the camp at the Battle of Dussindale (August 1549) with professional troops; Kett was hanged at Norwich Castle |
The twin risings destroyed Somerset. His public sympathy for anti-enclosure grievance made him look complicit in disorder to the gentry, while his hesitation in crushing the rebels alarmed them further; yet his eventual reliance on force satisfied nobody. Diarmaid MacCulloch has argued that Somerset's well-meaning populism actively encouraged revolt by signalling that the regime shared the commons' complaints — a reading that turns the "Good Duke" into the author of his own downfall. It was this collapse of elite confidence, more than the rebellions themselves, that brought him down in October 1549, when Warwick and a coalition of councillors moved against him. For the "crisis" debate, the risings cut both ways: they demonstrate real instability and the explosive potential of religious and economic grievance, but their suppression also demonstrates that the state retained the coercive capacity to restore order.
John Dudley, Earl of Warwick — created Duke of Northumberland in 1551 — engineered Somerset's fall and emerged as the effective head of government. He is the single most rehabilitated figure of the period, and the contrast with Somerset is central to the "crisis" debate: where Somerset was the idealist who lost control, Northumberland was the pragmatist who restored it.
| Aspect | Somerset | Northumberland |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Lord Protector | Lord President of the Council — pointedly avoiding the provocative "Protector" and ruling, at least in form, through the Council rather than around it |
| Style | Idealistic, populist, autocratic in practice | Pragmatic, efficient, ruthless, and politically astute |
| Finance | Reckless war spending; further debasement of the coinage | Withdrew from the costly Scottish and French wars; began to restore the currency and reform the revenue courts — administrative work from which Mary and Elizabeth would benefit |
| Religion | Cautious, incremental Protestantism | A more thorough, doctrinally committed Protestantism |
| Reputation | Sympathetically remembered as the "Good Duke" | Long vilified as the villain of the Jane Grey coup — but substantially rehabilitated by historians who credit his administrative competence |
Northumberland's fiscal and administrative record is the strongest single piece of evidence against the "crisis" thesis for the Edwardian years. He liquidated the unwinnable wars that had drained the treasury, halted and began to reverse the debasement of the coinage that had fuelled inflation, and set in motion a reform of the revenue courts that rationalised the crown's finances. This is not the record of a collapsing state; it is competent, if unglamorous, recovery. The paradox of the period is that its most capable governor is also its most notorious, because his competence is overshadowed by the reckless gamble with which his rule ended.
Under Northumberland the Reformation moved decisively beyond the calculated ambiguity of 1549 toward an unmistakably Reformed position.
| Reform | Detail |
|---|---|
| Second Book of Common Prayer (1552) | Decisively Protestant: communion is framed as a memorial, and the so-called Black Rubric denied any "real and essential presence" of Christ's natural body in the sacrament |
| Forty-Two Articles (1553) | A fully Protestant confession of faith drafted chiefly by Cranmer — the doctrinal high-water mark of the English Reformation to date, and the later basis of Elizabeth's Thirty-Nine Articles |
| Ordinal (1550) | A reformed rite for ordaining clergy, stripped of Catholic sacrificial language |
| Stripping of the churches | Stone altars replaced by wooden communion tables; images, plate, and vestments removed — the visible Protestantising of the parish church |
By Edward's death in 1553 the Church of England was, on paper, a fully Reformed Protestant institution. How deeply this had penetrated popular belief in a mere six years is doubtful — a point the revisionist historians of the Reformation, above all Christopher Haigh and Eamon Duffy, press hard. The shallowness of Protestant conviction in much of the country is precisely what would make Mary's Catholic restoration so relatively easy after 1553, and it is a thread that runs directly into the next lesson.
As the consumptive Edward VI lay dying in the spring of 1553, aged fifteen, the Protestant Reformation he had presided over was suddenly in jeopardy, because the legal heir under Henry VIII's will and the Act of Succession was the committed Catholic Mary.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Edward's "Devise for the Succession" | The dying king — a sincere and zealous Protestant — drafted a device excluding both his half-sisters (Mary and Elizabeth) as illegitimate and settling the crown on his Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey |
| Northumberland's role | Northumberland married his son Lord Guildford Dudley to Jane and promoted the scheme — but modern scholarship increasingly accepts that the initiative came substantially from Edward himself, determined to save his religious settlement, not solely from an ambitious Duke |
| Jane's "reign" | Jane was proclaimed queen on 10 July 1553; her reign lasted just nine days (sometimes counted as thirteen) |
| Mary's response | Mary fled to East Anglia, proclaimed herself queen at Framlingham, and rallied overwhelming support — crucially from Catholics and Protestants who upheld the legitimate Tudor line; the Privy Council promptly defected to her |
| Outcome | Northumberland's support evaporated; he was arrested and executed in August 1553. Jane was initially spared but executed in February 1554 in the aftermath of Wyatt's Rebellion |
The significance of 1553 cuts sharply against the "crisis" thesis. A usurping coup, engineered by the head of government and backed by the machinery of the state, collapsed almost bloodlessly within days because the country rallied to the legitimate heir. Far from demonstrating the fragility of the Tudor polity, the episode demonstrates the extraordinary strength of dynastic loyalty and the resilience of the hereditary succession — the very reverse of systemic breakdown. The question of Edward's own agency is analytically important: if the Devise was substantially the king's own doing, then Northumberland was executing his sovereign's wishes, not merely grasping for a Dudley dynasty, and the coup looks less like naked ambition and more like a doomed attempt to preserve a Protestant settlement against the arithmetic of legitimacy.
The Edwardian years sit at the heart of the "mid-Tudor crisis" debate, and a strong answer organises the historians into schools and weighs them rather than listing them. Paraphrase their arguments; never place invented words in a historian's mouth.
| Historian | Interpretation (paraphrased) | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| W.R.D. Jones (The Mid-Tudor Crisis, 1973) | Argued for a genuine, multi-dimensional crisis: minority and female rule, fiscal exhaustion, debasement, inflation, rebellion, and religious turmoil combined into a systemic strain on the state | The classic statement; valuable for cataloguing the real problems, but tends to aggregate difficulties into a "crisis" contemporaries may not have experienced as one |
| Jennifer Loach | Revisionist on Edward: Edwardian government functioned far more normally than the "crisis" model allows — Parliament sat and legislated, administration continued, and Northumberland's financial reforms were genuine | Persuasive on institutional continuity; some argue it underrates the depth of the religious upheaval |
| David Loades | The difficulties were real but should not be exaggerated: government worked, and both regimes inherited problems not of their own making | A measured middle position — strain without collapse |
| Diarmaid MacCulloch | Emphasises the seriousness and reach of the Edwardian Reformation as a committed Protestant enterprise, and reads Somerset's populism as having actively encouraged the 1549 unrest | Reframes the period as one of genuine religious transformation rather than mere drift |
| Christopher Haigh / Eamon Duffy | Stress the shallowness of Protestant conviction after only six years — outward conformity outran inward belief, which is why Mary's restoration met little resistance | Essential for distinguishing the legal Reformation from the cultural one |
The historiographical movement has been from Jones's "crisis" toward the revisionist rehabilitation of Edwardian government (Loach, Loades) and a re-emphasis on religion as the real site of turmoil (MacCulloch, Haigh, Duffy). The key evaluative judgement is whether one measures the period by the functioning of government — in which case the revisionists are largely vindicated — or by the depth of religious and social disturbance, in which case the "crisis" language captures something real. The most defensible synthesis disaggregates the two: administrative resilience alongside genuine religious upheaval.
The Y107 enquiry presents four contemporary written sources and asks you to weigh them for what they reveal about a given issue. For the Edwardian period a characteristic source is the rebel articles document — a collective statement of grievance such as the Western rebels' demands or Kett's Mousehold Articles. Evaluating a source of this type turns on provenance, purpose, tone, and context.
A source of this type would be a set of numbered demands drawn up by the rebels or their literate sympathisers and addressed to the Crown — for example, a manifesto insisting on the restoration of the Latin Mass and the old ceremonies, or one cataloguing the abuses of enclosing landlords and calling for the redress of agrarian wrongs. Its provenance is collective and partisan: it is a first-hand statement of what the rebels wished to claim, but shaped for a public, petitioning purpose. Its purpose is to legitimise the rising — to frame demands as the loyal redress of specific wrongs rather than rebellion against the king — which is why such documents so often blame "evil counsellors" and profess devotion to the sovereign. Its tone is petitionary and dutiful, a conventional posture of Tudor political culture rather than a transparent window onto motive.
Read critically and in context, a religious manifesto of this kind is excellent evidence of the confessional conservatism of a region such as the South-West, and of how Catholic much of England remained after a decade of change — supporting Duffy and Haigh. But its limitations must be weighed: a manifesto states claims framed for effect; it may understate more radical impulses, and its "loyal petition" framing is itself a tactic. The transferable enquiry lesson is that such a document is evidence of how rebels chose to justify themselves as much as of their full motives — and that the framing is itself a historical fact about the political culture of the age. In the four-source enquiry, you would set this against the other three sources, using each to test and qualify the others rather than treating any one as the plain truth.
Specimen question modelled on the OCR Y107 period-study essay (Section B, AO1): "The reign of Edward VI was a period of crisis for the English state." How far do you agree?
This is an AO1-led period-study essay rewarding sustained analysis and a substantiated judgement across the reign. A strong answer disaggregates "crisis" into its dimensions — government, religion, social order, the succession — tests the proposition against each, and reaches a discriminating verdict, rather than narrating the years 1547–1553 in sequence.
Mid-band response: There were many problems in Edward VI's reign, so in some ways it was a crisis. Edward was only a child, so Somerset and then Northumberland ruled for him. There were two big rebellions in 1549: the Western Rising against the new Prayer Book, and Kett's Rebellion in Norfolk against enclosure. The religion kept changing to become more Protestant, which upset Catholics. In 1553 Northumberland tried to make Lady Jane Grey queen instead of Mary, but this failed after nine days. However, the country did not fall apart, and Mary became queen successfully. So there was some crisis but also some stability in Edward VI's reign.
Examiner-style commentary: To reach the next band this response must stop listing problems and start testing the proposition. The knowledge is accurate but the argument is an undifferentiated "some of each." The move that lifts it is to introduce an explicit standard of judgement — separating the stability of government from the depth of religious and social disturbance — and to weigh the evidence against that standard. Naming the significance of the 1553 succession (a coup that collapsed because the realm rallied to the legitimate heir) as evidence against crisis, rather than just as a failed plot, would sharpen the analysis considerably.
Stronger response: Whether Edward VI's reign was a "crisis" depends on which dimension is examined. In religion there was genuine upheaval: the swing from Henrician conservatism to the fully Reformed Church of the 1552 Prayer Book and the Forty-Two Articles was rapid and divisive, and the Western Rising of 1549 shows how violently it could be resisted. In social order the two rebellions of 1549 reveal real instability, and the economy suffered from debasement and inflation. However, in government the case for crisis is much weaker. Northumberland restored conciliar rule, ended the ruinous wars, and began to reform the coinage and the revenue courts; the institutions of administration went on working, as Loach and Loades argue. Above all, the succession crisis of 1553 collapsed almost bloodlessly because the country rallied to Mary as the legitimate heir — hardly the mark of a state in systemic breakdown. So the proposition is too sweeping overall, though it captures the reality of the religious upheaval.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a clear, criteria-based argument that disaggregates "crisis" by dimension and reaches a differentiated verdict — a real step up. To reach top-band it needs to integrate the historiography into the reasoning rather than gesture at it, and to sustain a single organising distinction all the way to a precise judgement. Turning the survival of the state and the constructive inheritance Mary received into positive arguments — and using Jones and the revisionists as part of the argument rather than as decoration — would complete the move.
Top-band response: The proposition is best assessed by disaggregating "crisis" into its dimensions, because the evidence points in opposite directions depending on which is examined, and a blanket verdict distorts the reign. In government and the succession, the claim largely fails: the machinery of central administration went on functioning under both regimes; Northumberland liquidated the unwinnable wars, halted the debasement, and began reforming the revenue courts, leaving the crown's finances stronger than he found them; and the attempted usurpation of 1553 collapsed within days precisely because the realm rallied to the legitimate heir — the very opposite of systemic breakdown. Here the revisionist case of Loach and Loades is decisive. In religion, however, the proposition holds: the rapid drive from Henrician conservatism to the Reformed settlement of 1552, and the rebellion it provoked in the South-West, produced exactly the confusion and division MacCulloch identifies as the true disturbance of the period, even if — as Haigh and Duffy insist — Protestant conviction remained shallow. The social and economic dimension lies between: real distress from inflation and enclosure, but also corrective reform. The discriminating judgement, then, is that "crisis" overstates the political condition of the realm while capturing the religious upheaval; the reign is best characterised not as collapse but as acute religious and social strain weathered by a resilient state — and the clearest proof is that the Marian and Elizabethan regimes could build on Edwardian administrative and doctrinal foundations rather than clear away wreckage.
Examiner-style commentary: This response earns the top band by interrogating the key term, sustaining one analytical distinction (political resilience versus religious upheaval) throughout, and deploying Jones, the revisionists, and MacCulloch as integral to the argument. The lesson for students is that a period-study essay is an argument about a proposition, not a chronological tour — every paragraph should return to the word being tested and specify in what respect and to what degree it applies.
The debate begins with W.R.D. Jones's The Mid-Tudor Crisis (1973) and is best read against its revisionist correctives: Jennifer Loach's work on Edward VI and Parliament and David Loades's studies of Northumberland and the period. Diarmaid MacCulloch's Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (1999) makes the case for the seriousness and reach of the Edwardian Reformation, while Christopher Haigh's English Reformations (1993) and Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars (1992) press the argument that Protestant conviction spread slowly and that traditional religion retained deep roots. A rewarding exercise is to read any two of these against each other and ask what each would count as evidence for its view — the discipline of interpretation is as much about method as about facts.
This content is aligned with the OCR A-Level History (H505) specification.