Tombland (The Shardlake series Book 7)
Page 91
The Protectorate was abolished and authority returned to the Council, although Warwick was now the acknowledged leader of England. If the fall of Somerset was one unintended consequence of the summer rebellions, the second was a rapidly negotiated end to the wars with Scotland and France. Thomas Smith’s opinion that inflation must be cured by reversing the debasement was accepted, and in 1551–2 the Council began reforming the coinage.
Warwick in power showed himself to be very much the classic, competent Tudor hard man.6 There were further, smaller rebellions in the winter of 1549–50, and considerable anxiety about another large-scale popular rebellion. The definition of riot was tightened, making it treasonous for forty or more people to break down enclosures, and a felony for twelve or more to destroy parks, or seek to lower rents and prices. In December, interestingly, an Act against ‘fond and fantastical prophecies’ was passed by Parliament.7 Government control in the localities was strengthened, particularly by the introduction of county Lord Lieutenants to supervise the suppression of unrest. Warwick’s regime did pass some legislation to ameliorate poverty, but this was very limited: allowing settlement on waste land to alleviate the lot of the poor peasant, and also to galvanize local authorities into introducing poor laws.
Many in Norfolk remembered the rebellion with longing, and, like Ralph Claxton in the epigraph to Tombland, were prosecuted for saying so. John Oldman was prosecuted in 1550 for stating ‘he wished that he was still in the rebel camp on Mousehold, eating stolen mutton’.8 John Redhead quoted two men as looking towards Kett’s body hanging from the top of Norfolk Castle, one saying, ‘Oh Kette God have mercye uppon thy soule and . . . trust in God but the kings Majestye and his Connsaill shell . . . Of their own gentylnes thou shalbe taken downe and by the grace of God and buryed and not hanged uppe for wynter stoore.’9
There were, however, to be no more large-scale popular rebellions, and the power of the Tudor State against the poor was strengthened. Andy Wood has argued that 1549 was decisive in shifting the loyalties of the yeoman class towards aspiration and gentleman status, valuing literacy for their children and becoming stalwarts of the Elizabethan State.10 Meanwhile, the poor got poorer.
And yet. Almost a century later, in 1644, during the English Civil Wars, the New Model Army arose from the Eastern Association, made up of men from the South-East, especially East Anglia. The New Model Army would later produce radical movements such as the Levellers. It is perhaps not too fanciful to imagine that some of the soldiers of the Eastern Association, great-grandchildren of the 1549 rebels, brought with them memories of a past attempt to create a more equal society.
ENDNOTES
Introduction
1. The full story is told in Holbrooke, R., ‘A Mousehold Abduction, 1548’, in Rawcliffe, C., Virgoe, R. and Wilson, R. (eds), Counties and Communities: Essays on East Anglian History (1996), pp. 115–28.
2. Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Young King (1968), p. 493.
The Background: Class and Status
1. Hayward, M., Rich Apparel: Clothing and the Law in Henry VIII’s England (2009), chapter 2.
2. Elyot, T., The Book Named the Governor (1531), quoted in Wood, A., Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (2002), p. 26.
3. Hayward, p. 42, quoting Elton, G. R., Tudor Constitution (1960), p. 15.
4. Hayward, p. 43, quoting Hale, J., The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance (1993), p. 465.
5. De Republica Anglorum, quoted in Wood (2002), pp. 29–30.
6. Wood, A., The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England (2007), p. 14.
7. For an interesting discussion of the virtues and limitations of Marx’s analysis, see Wood (2007), pp. 14–16.
8. Whittle, J., The Development of Agrarian Capitalism: Land and Labour in Norfolk, 1440–1580 (2000), pp. 97–8.
9. Wood (2007), p. 181.
10. Fletcher, A. and MacCulloch, D., Tudor Rebellions (2004), pp. 22–4.
11. Ibid., chapter 4 and Wood (2002), pp. 49–54.
12. See particularly Shagan, E., Popular Politics and the English Reformation (2003).
The Rule of Protector Somerset: Inflation and War, Religious and Social Reform
1. There is an interesting discussion of the circumstances of Somerset’s rise to power in Skidmore, C., Edward VI: The Last King of England (2007), chapters 1–3.
2. Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Young King (1968) expresses the first view; Bush, M. L., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (1975) the second.
3. See e.g. Jordan, p. 39, Skidmore, pp. 239-40.
4. Merriman, M., The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542–1551 (2000), pp. 218–19.
The Great Inflation
1. Chalis, C., The Tudor Coinage (1978), pp. 68–95.
2. Wood (2007), p. 30.
3. Youings, J., Sixteenth-Century England (1984), p. 135.
4. See discussion in Bush, pp. 41–2.
The Scottish War
1. This account is based on Merriman, chapter 10.
2. Ibid., p. 342.
3. Hodgkins, A., ‘Reconstructing Rebellion: Digital Terrain Analysis of the Battle of Dussindale (1549)’, Internet Archaeology 38 (2015), p. 20.
4. Phillips, G., ‘To Cry “Home! Home!”: Neutrality, Morale and Indiscipline in Tudor Armies’, Journal of Military History 65 (April 2001), p. 320.
5. Fletcher and MacCulloch, chapter 13.
Religious Change
1. Jordan, chapters 4–5.
2. Fletcher and MacCulloch, p. 240, fn. 9.
3. Jordan, pp. 125–6.
The Commonwealth Men
1. Jones, W. R. D., The Tudor Commonwealth (1970), chapter 1.
2. Woodcock, M., ‘Thomas Churchyard and the Medieval Complaint Tradition’, in King, A. and Woodcock, M. (eds), Medieval Into Renaissance: Essays for Helen Cooper (2016), pp. 123–41.
3. Jones, p. 214.
4. Quoted in Elton, G. R., ‘Reform and the “Commonwealth-men” of Edward VI’s Reign’, in Clark, P., Smith, A. G. R. and Tyacke, N. (eds), The English Commonwealth 1547–1640 (1979), p. 27.
5. Bush, chapter 3.
6. Jones, p. 214.
7. Ibid., pp. 43, 50.
8. Fletcher and MacCulloch, pp. 12–14.
The Enclosure Commissions
1. Discussion of the 1548 enclosure commission and the sheep tax follows Jordan, pp. 427–36.
2. The discussion of the 1548 Northaw rising is based on Jones, A., ‘Commotion Time’: The English Risings of 1549, University of Warwick PhD (2003), chapter 2.
3. For the issue of enclosure, see Cornwall, J., Revolt of the Peasantry (1977), chapter 1; Hammond, R. J., The Social and Economic Circumstances of Kett’s Rebellion (1934), chapter 1; Kerridge, E., Agrarian Problems in the Sixteenth Century and After (1969); and a particularly good summary in Youings, J., Sixteenth-Century England (1984).
Was Enclosure a Major Problem?
1. Youings, p. 171.
2. Kerridge, chapter 4.
3. Fletcher and MacCulloch, p. 83.
4. Hammond, p. 64.
5. Ibid., p. 75.
1549: A Perfect Storm
1. Jordan, chapter XIII.
2. Jones, p. 253.
3. Bush, p. 59.
The May ‘Stirs’
1. Heinze, R. W., The Proclamations of the Tudor Kings (1976), p. 217.
2. Ravensdale, J. R., ‘Landbeach in 1549: Kett’s Rebellion in Miniature’, in Mundy, L. M. (ed.), East Anglian Studies (1968).
3. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (1996), p. 429.
4. Heinze, p. 217.
The Western Rebellion
1. Youings, J., ‘The South-Western Rebellion of 1549’, Southern History (1979), pp. 100–22.
2. Jones, pp. 89–90.
3. Greenwood, A., A Study of the Rebel Petitions of 1549, University of Manchester PhD (1990), Part 1.
4. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 430–1.
The Rebellions of Commonwealth
1. Jones, Map 1.2.
2. Ibid., pp. 69 and 183–238.
3. Ibid., pp. 194–222 for discussion of the Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire rebellions.
4. MacCulloch, D., ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, Past & Present 84 (1979).
5. See for example Cornwall, op. cit.
6. Jones, p. 5.
Rebel Coordination
1. Heinze, p. 218.
2. Somerset to Hoby, 24.8.1549. Quoted in Bush, M. L., ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: A Post-Revision Questioned’, English Historical Review (February 2000).
3. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, p. 47.
4. Jones, pp. 115–20.
5. Alsop, J. D., ‘Latimer, The “Commonwealth of Kent” and the 1549 Rebellions’, Historical Journal 28.2 (1985), pp. 379–83.
6. Cooper, C. H., Annals of Cambridge 2, p. 43, quoted in Jones, p. 146.
7. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, p. 43.
8. Fletcher and MacCulloch, p. 77.
9. Sotherton, N., The Commoysion in Norfolk (1549), reproduced by Beer, B., in Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976), p. 1.
10. For discussion of the Canterbury rebels, see Jones, pp. 169–74.
East Anglia: Background to Revolt
1. Fletcher and MacCulloch, p. 23.
2. Wood (2007), pp. 58–9.
3. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, pp. 53–5.
4. MacCulloch, D., ‘A Reformation in the Balance: Power Struggles in the Diocese of Norwich, 1533–1553’, in Counties and Communities, pp. 97–114.
5. Information on Norwich is taken from Pound, J. F., Tudor and Stuart Norwich (1988).
6. Wood, A., ‘Kett’s Rebellion’, in Rawcliffe, C. and Wilson, R. (eds), Medieval Norwich (2004), p. 294.
7. Wood (2007), p. 59.
Wymondham
1. Neville, A., Norfolk Furies (1575), translated from the Latin by Richard Woods, 1615. Pagination follows that of the edition held in the Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Library, Norwich.
2. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, p. 43.
3. Hoare, A., An Unlikely Rebel: Robert Kett and the Norfolk Rising, 1549 (1999), p. 22.
4. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, pp. 41–4.
5. Land, S. K., Kett’s Rebellion: The Norfolk Rising of 1549 (1977), p. 144.
6. Hoare (1999), pp. 16–23, on Flowerdew.
7. Land, p. 144.
8. Hoare (1999), pp. 20–22.
9. Communication from Adrian Hoare, 2017.
10. Sotherton, p. 80.
11. Neville, p. 9.
Norwich to Mousehold
1. Neville, p. 13.
2. Sotherton, p. 81.
3. MacCulloch, ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’, p. 61.
Who Were the Rebels?
1. Neville, p. 105.
2. Ashwin, T. and Davison, A. (eds), An Historical Atlas of Norfolk (2005), p. 100.
3. Coleman, D. C., The Economy of England 1450–1750 (1977), p. 12.
4. Neville, p. 70.
5. Russell, F. W., Kett’s Rebellion in Norfolk (1859), p. 102.
6. Greenwood, Aubrey R., A Study of the Rebel Petitions of 1549, University of Manchester PhD (1990); Whittle, J., ‘Lords and Tenants in Kett’s Rebellion 1549’, Past & Present, no. 207 (May 2010), pp. 3–51.
7. Greenwood, pp. 320–1.
8. Whittle, p. 23.
9. Ibid., p. 26.
10. Ibid., p. 41.
11. Greenwood, pp. 320–1.
Administration of the Camp
1. Whittle, pp. 37–8.
2. Neville, p. 18.
3. Land, p. 20.
4. Neville, p. 17.
5. Sotherton, p. 84.
6. Ibid.
7. Greenwood, p. 327.
8. Neville, pp. 25–6; Sotherton, p. 84.
9. Russell, p. 47.
10. Blomefield, F., An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk (1739–75), chapter 2.5 18/29, British History Online edition.
11. Greenwood, p. 306.
12. Neville, p. 65.
13. Ibid., p. 75. (Land quotes Sotherton as mentioning Miles’s name in this connection, but this is not in the Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies edition.)
14. Sotherton, p. 87; Jary, L. R., Rewriting the Rebellion (2018), Part 2, ‘Weapons’.
Relations with Norwich
1. Sotherton, p. 83.
2. Ibid., p. 85.
3. Jary, L. R., Through Ancient Gates: the Medieval Defences of Norwich (2011) for a discussion of the walls.
4. Sotherton, p. 82.
5. Neville, pp. 20–1. (Parker’s visit must have been on 18–19 July, since he spoke at the high scaffold round the Oak on a Friday. This could not have been the 12th, since that was the date of the rebels’ arrival; and by the 26th Norwich had been occupied.)
6. Greenwood, p. 305.
Financing the Camp
1. MacCulloch, D., ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context: A Rejoinder’, in Slack, P. (ed.), Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England (1984), p. 75; Fletcher and MacCulloch, p. 85; MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 437, 451–2, 456; Skidmore, pp. 130–1. This would be a fascinating area for further research. For example, it would be interesting to see whether his flocks were raided during the Rebellion.
2. Skidmore, p. 131.
Reimagining Life in the Camp
1. Neville, p. 19.
2. Ibid., p. 43.
3. Ibid., p. 27.
4. Ibid., p. 51.
5. Sotherton, p. 92.
6. Neville, pp. 18–23.
The ‘Prophets’
1. Morehouse, G., The Pilgrimage of Grace (2002), pp. 40–1, 72.
2. Sotherton, p. 97.
3. Dawson, J., John Knox (2015), chapter 3.
4. Horst, I. B., The Radical Brethren (1972), chapter 3.
5. Ibid., pp. 103–7.
6. Holinshed, R., Chronicle (1577), The Holinshed Shared Project (http://english.nsms.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/), Vol. 4 (1613), p. 69.
12–21 July: Days of Hope
1. Greenwood, p. 211.
2. Land, pp. 63–6, reproduces the demands.
3. Greenwood, p. 211.
4. Land, chapter 11; Cornwall, p. 145.
5. Greenwood, p. 143; Wood, p. 64; Beer, B., Rebellion and Riot: Popular Disorder in England During the Reign of Edward VI (2005), p. 111.
6. My argument is largely based on that of Greenwood, pp. 214–36.
7. Shagan, E. H., ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives’, English Historical Review (February 1999); Bush, M. L., ‘Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: A Post-Revision Questioned’, EHR (February 2000); and Bernard, G. W, ‘New Perspectives or Old Complexities?’, EHR (February 2000).
8. Shagan, op. cit., Letter 3; op. cit., p. 58; Bernard, op. cit., p. 116.
9. Shagan, op. cit., pp. 55–7.
10. Sotherton, p. 85.
11. Neville, p. 31.
12. Ibid.
13. Sotherton, p. 85.
Armed Conflicts: 21 July to 1 August
1. Southerton, p. 85.
2. Russell, pp. 78–80.
3. Sotherton, p. 87.
4. Russell, p. 81.
5. Neville, pp. 40–1.
6. Land, chapter 16, is a good summary of attempts to spread the rebellion.
7. Jones, pp. 264–73.
8. Hoare, A. and A., Mystery, Drama, Scandal and Ruin – Exploring the Lives of Some Families Whose Coats of Arms Were Found at Number Nine, Town Green Wymondham (2018).
9. Land, chapter 14. Land is good on the military aspects.
10. Sotherton, pp. 89–90.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid. The account of the battle is based on Sotherton, pp. 89–91, and Land, chapter 15.
13. Groves, R., Rebels’ Oak (1947), p. 57.
Growing Isolation: 1–24 A
ugust
1. Sotherton, pp. 91–3.
2. Jones, pp. 163–4.
The Coming of Warwick’s Army
1. Miller, G. J., Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries 1485–1547 (1980), esp. p. 44.
2. Jary, L. R., Part 2, ‘Destruction of the North Wall Gates’, has a very useful discussion of this.
3. Sotherton, p. 95.
4. Carter, A., ‘The Site of Dussindale’, Norfolk Archaeology Vol. XXXIX, Part 1 (1984), pp. 54–62.
5. Sotherton, p. 98.
6. Jary, L. R., Part 4.
7. Neville, p. 70.
The Final Battles: 24–27 August
1. Description of events between 24 and 26 August is based on Sotherton, pp. 92–7.
2. Somerset to Hoby, 15.9.1549, quoted in Russell, p. 214.
3. Jary, L. R., Part 3, on which my discussion of the Battle of Dussindale is largely based.
4. Neville, p. 71.
5. Sotherton, p. 98.
6. Russell, p. 144, referencing journal of Edward VI.
7. Neville, pp. 71–2.
8. Sotherton, p. 99.
9. Neville, pp. 73–4.
The Aftermath
1. Neville, p. 76.
2. Holinshed Shared texts, Vol. IV, p. 1613, 69.
3. Neville, pp. 75–6.
4. Whittle, Part V.
5. Land, p. 126.
6. This account based on Loach, J., Edward VI (1999), pp. 105–6.
7. Skidmore, p. 152.
8. Wood (2007), p. 77.
9. Ibid., p. 78.
10. Ibid., chapter 5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Until comparatively recently, little was written about the rebellions of 1549 as a whole or about the Western Rebellion; there has been more on Kett’s Rebellion, but not that much.
As Diarmaid MacCulloch has said, much of what was written about Kett’s Rebellion before the 1970s was derived from the only contemporary narrative, The Commoysion in Norfolk by Nicholas Sotherton. Written in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, it is very short, and viscerally opposed to the rebels.
The next narrative to appear was Alexander Neville’s Norfolk Furies (1575), translated from the Latin by Richard Woods in 1615. Neville was secretary to Archbishop Matthew Parker, who briefly visited the camp in 1549. Neville’s opposition to the rebels is ferocious, but a lot of useful information can be garnered from his longer account. Holinshed’s Chronicle (1577) discusses the rebellion but adds little to Neville.