Acknowledgements
This work is based upon my doctoral thesis and I would like, firstly, to express my sincere gratitude to the National University of Ireland, Galway, and in particular the College of Arts, for endowing me with a fellowship. I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Steven Ellis, for his encouragement, guidance and support and Dr Alison Forrestal for her constructive criticism and advice.
I would like to acknowledge the assistance given to me by the staff of the National Archives, Kew, the British Library, London, and the Borthwick Institute for Archives at the University of York, in particular, Victoria Hoyle. In addition, I am grateful for the help of the Special Collections staff in National University of Ireland, Galway.
I wish to convey my gratitude to Mark Beynon, commissioning editor at The History Press, for helping the work to see the light of day and for all his assistance, patience and understanding. I would also like to thank my editor, Naomi Reynolds, for her guidance, attention and support.
A number of people have sustained me throughout this project and special thanks go to Louise Rooney, Mairead Murphy and Katherine O’Driscoll. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Carmel McGuinn and Rona McLaughlin who were steadfast in their support during difficult times.
I would like to express my love and thanks to Brendan, Mairead, Ciara, Patrick and Sean Loughlin. I also wish to acknowledge the friendship, loyalty and encouragement of Liza O’Malley.
I wish to recognise the contribution of my grandparents in igniting my curiosity and fostering my love of learning – Edward and Una Loughlin and Martin and Bridget Duffy. Finally, my enduring and heartfelt love and appreciation to my parents, John and Kathleen Loughlin, without whom none of this would have been possible.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Contents
Title
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1 Background: Government and Religion in 1536
2 The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Holy Crusade?
3 Resumption of Revolts and Royal Retribution
4 Rehabilitated Rebels and Reward
5 Loyalty and Patronage
6 Perceptions and the Pilgrimage: The Crown’s Response
7 The Rhetoric of Resistance and Religiosity
Conclusion
List of Abbreviations
Bibliography
Plates
Copyright
Introduction
Of all the enigmas in the English Reformation, the motivations and intentions of King Henry VIII remain some of the most difficult to elucidate.1
Lucy Wooding’s view echoed that of Felicity Heal, who stated that making sense of Henrician religious policy was a ‘trying business’.2 As is widely known, the king’s break with Rome was caused by the refusal of the papacy to sanction his divorce from his queen, Katherine of Aragon. There appears to be a pervasive view that Henry’s Anglican Church was merely an organisation which represented Catholicism without the pope. This is incorrect: the king, aided by his deputy in ecclesiastical matters, Thomas Cromwell (until his fall in 1540), simply chopped and changed doctrine according to expediency, whim or whatever suited him. Henry’s later innovations will not be discussed here but Heal’s assessment that Henry’s own erratic and eclectic understanding of his role as Supreme Head was ‘underpinned not by a coherent theology but by little more than a “ragbag of emotional preferences”’3 is an accurate appraisal.
It is, perhaps, for these reasons that the study of the English Reformation remains an appealing and fascinating task. As Susan Wabuda has stated, the challenges for understanding what the Reformation presents are among the most rewarding in all fields of scholarship.4 Writing in the same year, Alec Ryrie gave as his raison d’être for a study of The Gospel and Henry VIII, that the ‘golden age of the local study of the English Reformation’ was drawing to a close. Ryrie therefore justified his attempt at a national overview as ‘traipsing once again through the crowded field of Tudor high politics … despite the fact that it might appear to be pointlessly repetitive’.5
The Reformation in England is indeed a fascinating subject to explore and this book focuses on one particular event, the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536.6 The Pilgrimage was a huge insurrection in which an estimated 30,000 men participated and has been described as the largest uprising against a Tudor monarch7 – some historians have argued that it had the potential to threaten Henry VIII’s throne.8
Although the Pilgrimage was confined to the North of England, its ramifications extended further and, whilst this is by no means an attempt at a national overview, the North cannot be viewed in total isolation, somehow divorced from the rest of England or, indeed, Christendom. In the same way as Dr Ryrie, I have had, once again, to traipse through a crowded field but would hope that the approach taken here will yield other topics for discussion. As Richard Hoyle has stated, the discovery of a new body of material on the Pilgrimage is ‘a rare occurrence’.9 Thus, this book explores different dimensions of the religious innovations in the North, using the Pilgrimage as its centrepiece, and concentrates on particular individuals and the parts they played in the movement.
It is necessary, at the outset, to provide a brief historiographical overview of the English Reformation, as well as a historiography specific to the Pilgrimage of Grace. The English Reformation has been the subject of much study and its common or dominant paradigm (until relatively recently) was dictated by the Whig interpretation of history – the inevitable march of progress. The Reformation was regarded as necessary in the process of state-building, forging a national identity and freeing the people from the foreign tyranny and superstition of the papacy. Since the 1970s, scholars have used the term ‘confessionalisation’ to describe how the Reformation became interlinked with the process of state-building. The contention is that monarchs (both Catholic and Protestant) rigorously promoted a single confession, or type of Christianity, within their territories in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They repressed alternatives as a means of exercising and increasing control over their subjects.10
The first phase of that reformation in England, the Henrician Reformation, had been viewed as relatively easy and fast by many historians in the 1950s and 1960s, including G.R. Elton and A.G. Dickens. This rapid reformation theory influenced many scholars, including Claire Cross.11 Where Elton and Dickens diverged was on their emphasis – Elton concentrated on a reformation imposed from the centre, whilst Dickens and Cross emphasised the religious, as opposed to the political, roots of the conversion.12 However, both schools were underpinned by an acceptance of the Whiggish position and shared the belief that the populace acquiesced readily as there was an underbelly favourable to reform.
Christopher Haigh succinctly summarised the main strands of the historiography of the English Reformation in 1987 and placed four main approaches within a matrix structure. These four approaches were, broadly: a rapid reformation from above; a rapid reformation from below; a slow conversion from above (in the localities); and a slow reformation from below. The Whig interpretations of Elton and Dickens were analysed and largely refuted by Haigh. Elton was identified as being the foremost exponent of the idea of a rapid reformation, imposed and enforced from the centre, as a result of deliberate government action – the ‘Protestant advance was entirely the result of official coercion’.
The Whig consensus paradigm began to be challenged by what became known as the ‘revisionist’ school. The revisionist historians questioned what was really happening to people’s religious beliefs throughout the Tudor period. Christopher Haigh, alongside Eamon Duffy, is one of the foremost scholars of this genre. Haigh questioned the idea of a widespread anti-clericalism as a springboard for the Reformat
ion. He also challenged the ‘Whig’ interpretation of the Reformation as ‘an inexorable process, a necessary sequence unfolding easily to a pre-determined conclusion’ and argued that there ‘was nothing inevitable about the final Protestant victory’.13
One of the aims here is to avoid labels which, inevitably, will become redundant with the passage of time – hence it does not claim to be a revisionist account in itself. Eamon Duffy has explained the origins of the term and stated that the historians commonly described as revisionists ‘shared no single agenda’. Although my paradigm model differs from historians such as Dickens and Elton, it seeks to harness the work of the revisionists in an attempt to identify the methods through which Henrician religious policy was enforced. However, at the outset, it should be acknowledged that I share the view that the Reformation had ‘not been achieved on a tidal wave of popular enthusiasm, but had to be worked for, by force, persuasion and slow institutional transformation’.14 The evidence presented here would appear to support the ‘slow reformation from above’ position.15 The Pilgrimage of Grace appears to be a good example to support this contention, but will the evidence and indeed the events of the aftermath bear this out?
It is my belief that the Henrician phase of the English Reformation should properly be referred to as an experiment. A reformation presupposes that there was a need or desire for reform and the evidence of a genuine, widespread theological conviction would need to be present. The label ‘Henrician religious experiment’ or the description ‘Henrician religious policy’ appear to be more fitting. Indeed, as Peter Marshall has stated, it is highly probable that Henry VIII used his Royal Supremacy to create a hybrid theology in which no one but the king actually believed.16
The influence of religiosity on the uprisings in the North of England in 1536 is of fundamental importance and an awareness of theological debate and controversy is pivotal to an understanding of the nature of the opposition. Lutheran ideas are clearly reflected in the Ten Articles and the subsequent First Henrician Injunctions issued in August 1536. Luther’s influence is evident: only three of the traditional seven sacraments were mentioned and there was a reduction in the number of holy days. Images, relics and miracles were condemned as superstitious and hypocritical.17 These developments will be discussed more fully in the following chapter.
Bush and Bownes summarised the situation when they stated that the religious revolution that the changes represented was not a response to the wishes of the people or most of the clergy: ‘Essentially, it was an act of state resulting from the control a small number of Protestants exercised over the government.’18 It is the real experience of innovation and how it impacted upon the laity which is crucial in understanding dissent. It can surely be no coincidence that the Northern Rebellions broke out within eight weeks of the dissemination of the First Injunctions.19 The injunctions fostered the sense of grievance at the time. The dissolution of the monasteries, more especially the suppression of the lesser houses, further represented an attack on the old order and threatened the sense of security of many of the laity.
It is appropriate, at this juncture, to consider the historiographical analysis specific to the Pilgrimage of Grace. The Pilgrimage of Grace was very much a large-scale insurrection and it is referred to as such in numerous sources from the period,20 but its significance has been underplayed in the Whig tradition. Elton and Dickens argued that socio-economic factors and not religion were the prime motivation in the rebellion. Elton also criticised the notion that it was large-scale.21 There are numerous references in the contemporary sources to the extent of the rising, with estimates of between 20,000 and 50,000 rebels22 – indeed the king himself referred to a ‘great rebellion in Yorkshire’23 – yet Elton refused to acknowledge the sheer magnitude of the rising. However, he stated elsewhere that virtually all of England north of the Trent was in rebel hands.24
His view can be challenged by many, including Michael Bush, who discussed the huge force consisting of nine separate hosts which ‘dwarfed’ the army royal. Bush is also of the opinion that the Pilgrimage was a ‘great’ rebellion because all three orders of the realm were involved.25 This is echoed by Richard Hoyle, who states that the Crown had lost control of virtually all of the North of England and Shagan, who estimates ‘perhaps 50,000 men at arms’ and speculates that if this force had marched on London no royal force could ‘possibly have stopped them’.26
Although the motivation of the participants in the rebellions has been the subject of debate among historians, there is an abundance of evidence to support the contention that the Pilgrimage of Grace was primarily motivated by religious issues and concerns. Elton appeared to disregard such evidence when he stated that it was ‘not really possible to agree’ that the risings were a ‘religious movement’. He reiterated the point when he argued that the ‘religious purposes of the Pilgrimage of Grace had shallow roots’. Dickens stated that he concurred with Rachel Reid that the Pilgrimage had a ‘predominantly secular and economic causation’.27 This view has been ably challenged by other scholars, notably Christopher Haigh, C.S.L. Davies, J.J. Scarisbrick, Peter Marshall, Scott Harrison and Ethan Shagan.
Dickens maintained that ‘however the Pilgrimage may be regarded, it was not a war, not even a potential war between Protestants and Catholics’. This view can be sharply contrasted with that of Hoyle who stated that the insurrection ‘was England’s war of religion’, whilst Marshall described the Pilgrimage as ‘the most dangerous expression of internal disaffection’ and stated that it was undoubtedly a reaction against interference with local religious culture. According to Shagan, it is ‘indisputable that the Pilgrimage of Grace was a revolt against the Reformation’, whilst Scarisbrick succinctly summed it up in his famous conclusion that the Pilgrimage ‘must stand as a large-scale, spontaneous, authentic indictment of all that Henry most obviously stood for’.28 The wide body of evidence to support the conclusion that the Pilgrimage was primarily motivated by religion will be discussed below.
Bush, Harrison and Hoyle are all of the view that the rebellion was a popular revolt and led by the commons,29 whilst Elton was adamant that the rising could be attributed to a conspiracy. He maintained that the insurrection was ‘not the spontaneous work of the commons but owed far more to the activities of alienated members of the ruling sort’.30 Without much hard evidence to make such a claim, Elton argued that the Pilgrimage was the brainchild of a disappointed Aragonese–Marian faction, aided and abetted by London lawyers.31 Elton’s arguments appear contradictory: on the one hand, he stated that the outbreak of the Pilgrimage was ‘sudden’32 but he then asserted that ‘no sizeable movement’ could have been organised without inducement, management and influence.33 In this statement, he actually concedes that the Pilgrimage was a sizeable movement.
The conspiracy theory is also a theme for Dickens, who stated that Lord Thomas Darcy was ‘a frequenter of the back-room of Chapuys’ and had urged Charles V to invade England in 1534.34 Davies refuted any idea of a conspiracy and cited the examples of the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Northumberland as those who had potential sympathy with the rebels’ cause and yet did not become involved. Indeed, ‘Norfolk took an expedient and calculating decision’ to lead the army royal when he potentially could have raised East Anglia.35
Andy Wood has stressed the idea of a society of orders but maintained that ‘early modern historians remain oddly resistant to the category of class’.36 Order and deference were undoubted features of the society within which the Pilgrimage occurred. Whether or not we accept the usage of the term ‘class’ in relation to the early modern period, it is essential to highlight the fact that the Pilgrimage embodied the co-operation of the different societal orders in an attempt to alter Crown policy. Arguing from a social history perspective, Wood had this to say of the Pilgrimage: ‘The sudden intrusion of rebellious plebeians into conventional histories of government, court faction and administration, ruptures the assumption that politics stemmed only from the central s
tate and the “political nation” of the gentry and nobility.’
Wood made the point that historians have often attempted to distinguish between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ motivations in the Pilgrimage and sees this as flawed. Secular issues, he stated, are seen as relating to economic and social concerns ‘as though religion existed in a separate realm from the “material world”’.37 This is exactly the case: why indeed do the two have to be regarded as mutually exclusive? It is a view also shared by Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch. Acknowledging that their study, Tudor Rebellions, attempts to sift the economic from the religious motivations, they state that the exercise is ‘essentially artificial in terms of contemporary understandings of economy, society and religion’. They state, rightly, that economic and social grievances were seen as moral or religious grievances, as economic and social misbehaviour was an offence against God.38
The Henrician Reformation must have had the impact of an epistemological seismic shock on the king’s subjects; securely held and cherished world views were shattered and insecurity and fear had the potential to spread like a virus in such circumstances. As Haigh has stated, the ‘Reformation shift from a ritualistic to a bibliocentric presentation of religion was a disaster in the countryside’,39 and the events of the autumn and winter of 1536 in the North of England bear this contention out. One thing we can speculate about is the nature of the sudden and shocking withdrawal of one set of practices and their replacement (or lack thereof) with another – this would be bound to lead to a rupture in societal hegemony and cohesion.
In a society of orders where structure and strata were paramount, the opportunity for individual agency was, of course, extremely restricted in the sixteenth century. That as many as 30,000 individuals sought to take action and exercise agency led to the spontaneous outburst that was the Pilgrimage of Grace. In such a static society of orders, any departure from the status quo was bound to be viewed with suspicion and hostility. Michael Bush has placed great emphasis on the idea of the body politic40 and this contemporary perception of a Christian community will be examined in conjunction with theological analysis.
Insurrection Page 1
