Chapter 13 Flashcards
Problems on Edward’s succession (3)
-the country was divided on religious grounds
-Crown finances had been ruined by expensive wars against France and Scotland and had compromised its own long-term security by selling of monastic lands, often at a considerable discount in order to raise money quickly
-to pay for the wars the coinage had been debased, leading to a considerable rise in the rate of inflation and a substantial decline in real incomes for many
How was the regency council structured and why did it end
Henry Vill, in his will had set up a Regency Council to govern England during Edward’s minority. This comprised sixteen members, supported by a further twelve who were required to assist as required. Decisions or bye Council were to be by majority. The Regency Council was balance the ween Protestants such as Hertford, Cranmer and Sir Anthony Denny and religious conservatives such as Thomas Wriothesley, now the Bar of Southampton, and Lord St John (later Marquis of Winchester). There were several administrators and lawyers who might have been expected to ensure the interests of good government. On the other hand, the great noble families were under-represented. The Regency Council did not last long; it promptly delegated its power to Hertford who was appointed Protector.
Evidence for government’s fear for good order and security
The government was fearful for good order and security. The tone of Archbishop Cranmer’s homily on Obedience, published in 1547, to be read in parish churches, made this very clear. The clergy in their pulpits were required to reinforce to their congregations that obedience to the authority the king was in accordance with the will of God; disobedience was, therefore,
a mortal sin.
How did Somerset rule?
Hertford counted on the support of Archbishop Cranmer, Viscount Lisle (later Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland), and Sir William Paget. He rewarded his supporters and himself with promotions within the peerage (he became Duke of Somerset) and substantial grants of Crown lands.
Within weeks Somerset had awarded himself control, governing largely with members of his own household, only one of whom, Sir Thomas Smith,
was appointed a member of the Privy Council. He reinforced this power by controlling the Privy Chamber through the appointment of his supporter, Sir
Michael Stanhope, as Chief Gentleman. Increasingly, members of the Privy
left out of the Regency Council,
Council felt resentment at the protectorate; within a few weeks one of them, the Earl of Southampton, had been arrested. Moreover, there could be no guarantee of wider public acceptance of Somerset’s protectorate. Consequently, there were widespread fears about the breakdown of law and order.
Thomas Seymour affair
The atmosphere within Somerset’s regime was quickly soured by factional rivalries. The first victim was Somerset’s brother, Thomas Seymour, Sevmour not only sought to turn Edward VI against his brother, the Protector, but also tried to plot with the Earl of Southampton against Somerset. This gave Somerset little choice but to bring treason charges against Seymour. He was assisted by Southampton who denounced Seymour and thereby achieved his readmission to the Council.
How did Seymour’s policy failings increase his unpopularity?
Such problems were reinforced by policy failings under Somerset. At the heart of these failings lay Somersets approach to foreign policy, especially with regard to Scotland. Moreover he badly mishandled the rebellions that broke out in 1549. Even before 1549, however, misgivings about Somerset had been growing. His arrogant and dictatorial manner created enemies, especially Southampton who resented his earlier imprisonment. His style of government and his policy failures combined to weaken him in the minds of many of those who had originally supported him. The most important such enemy was the Earl of Warwick, and the apparent feebleness of Somerset’s response to the rebellions of 1549 gave Warwick the opportunity to strike.
Warwick’s coup against Somerset
The rebellions of 1549 gave Warwick the opportunity to strike.
At some stage in August 1549 Warwick and Southampton, along with two other conservative noblemen, the Earl of Arundel and Lord St John, decided that Somerset’s control should be brought to an end. Initially they tried to secure the support of Princess Mary, but she decided to steer well clear of any conspiracy. By October the conspirators were ready to strike. There was a
stand-off between the conspirators, based in London, and Somerset who was at Hampton Court but who crucially still had control over the king. Somerset and Edward retreated to Windsor but, in the end, Somerset, having been promised that no treason charges would be pressed against him, surrendered.
How did Warwick rule before Somerset’s coup and how did he consolidate his power?
As a result of the coup against Somerset and the protectorate, Warwick, as the leader of the plot, found himself first among equals. He was anxious to avoid the excessive concentration of power that had itself done so much to bring Somerset down, and so there was no attempt to re-establish a protectorate.
Warwick presided as Lord President of the Council, but at first it was unclear exactly what type of regime he was going to preside over. Many of his key supporters in the coup had been conservatives; some of these hoped for a regency led by Princess Mary. The nature of the regime was made clearer by Warwick’s second coup, this time directed at the conservatives. It was later assumed that Warwick always intended this second coup so that he could exercise unlimited power. However, it seems more likely that Warwick acted because he feared that he himself might be ejected by the conservatives.
The purging of the conservatives Southampton and Arundel, Cranmer’s support and the king’s own increasingly assertive Protestantism determined the religious character of the regime. Warwick himself was promoted to Duke of Northumberland. Already Lord Chamberlain, he appointed his own hardman, Sir John Gates, as Vice-Chamberlain of the household to ensure his control over the court.
Northumberland did for a time operate an effective government through the Privy Council, although his task in this respect was undoubtedly made easier by the expulsion of the Earl of Southampton. Paget had drawn up a set of guidelines for the more effective operation of the Privy Council, some of which Northumberland instituted, although Paget was to find himself increasingly excluded from decision-making processes. Instead, William Cecil. who had originally prospered as one of Somersets men, was able to transform himself, after a brief period of imprisonment, into Northumberland’s key administrator.
How did Northumberland’s approach to government change after Somerset’s coup?
However, this broadly collective approach to government did not survive Somerset’s attempt at a counter coup. Having been readmitted to the Council, Somerset plotted to recover his old position, but was outwitted by Northumberland. Somerset was executed, an action which, according to Dale Hoak, saved England from a revival of the chaos that had characterist the protectorate. Northumberland reacted to the coup attempt by becomes less conciliar in his approach to government. In other words, he started to behave in precisely the way that Somerset had before he was remored Presumed enemies such as Paget were removed from the Council and Paget himself was sent to the Tower. Power lay increasingly in the hands of Northumberland and his henchman Gates, who had possession of the dry stamp with which he could affix the king’s signature to documents.
Histiography of Northumberland
For several centuries Northumberland enjoyed a bad press from hitorians. He was seen as particularly ruthless and unscrupulous on account of his coups against Somerset and then the conservatives, his securing of Somerset’s execution and his failed attempt to alter the secession. There was a simple contrast between Somerset the good succesand Northumberland *the bad duke Moreover, Northumberlands duke-apulousness was apparently combined with incompetence. In more This process was begun by the American historian Dale Hoak who unscryears Northumberland reputatan historian Dare Holl reassessed. argued that Northumberland was no more unscrupulous than any other arguing Tudor politician. Moreover trad remarks Further in claiming leadiNorthumberland was one of the most remarkably able governors that y European state during the sixteenth century solving many of the problems which he had inherited from Somerset. More recently, David prades has offered a more measured evaluation, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004). On the one hand, he views him as a Of war figure in English government for a crucial decade; on the other mad, though a hardened professional; he destroyed himself by a major miscalculation which left his reputation as discredited as his career;
Edward’s ill health and why this was a problem for Northumberland
While Northumberland restored stability his reputation has been tarnished by his attempt to alter the succession.
In his will Henry VIl had laid down that he should be succeeded by his
son Edward, but thats award should die without children, theeded bybig be succeeded by Princes Mary. For much of Northumberlands time he didn’t see this as an issue. Although Edward’s health was never particularly robust he was nevertheless expected to reach adulthood. However, in February 1553 he he was taken ill and by the end of March the Venetian ambassador reported that he was dying.
The rapid decline in Edward’s health created an immediate problem for Northumberland. It was obvious that if Mary were to come to the throne, Catholicism would be restored. Northumberland, who had enthusiastically supported a more radical form of Protestantism, would thus be ruined and his life would be in danger.
Northumberland’s solution to succession problem and why it failed
A plan, known as the Devyse, was consequently produced to alter the succession and the original idea may well have come from Edward rather han Northumberland. Edward was anxious to ensure the continuation of Protestantism in the event of his death and was prepared to exclude both his half-sisters (Mary and Elizabeth, who was second in line from the succession.
To Edward, both were illegitimate. Northumberland’s preferred choice as the next monarch was Lady Jane Grey. Jane was married to Northumberland’s son, Guildford Dudley. In June 1553, Mary and Elizabeth were both declared illegitimate and preparations were made to call a parliament to ratify the new succession. However, Edward died on 6 July 1553 before that parliament could meet. Without parliamentary sanction the Devyse was patently illegal.
Surprisingly, for someone who was such an effective political operator, Northumberland seemed to have no plans in place for what to do when the king actually died. It took him three days to carry out his plan and not until 9 July 1553 did he proclaim Lady Jane Grey as queen.
Somerset’s foreign policy objectives and strategy
In 1547 Somerset inherited a potentially ruinous foreign policy from Henry
VIII. Somerset’s aggressive approach to Scotland was determined by the strategic objective of reasserting the ancient claim of Edward I to the Scottish throne. His aim was to enforce the marriage between Edward VI and the infant Mary, Queen of Scots and thereby unite the crowns of England and Scotland.
The difference between the approaches of Henry and Somerset was that for Henry an aggressive policy towards the Scots was a sideshow with the main action being in France, whereas for Somerset Scotland was his main priority.
Somerset’s chosen strategy was to defeat the Scots in battle, build and garrison a number of forts in the borders and south of Scotland and force the Scots into submission.
Somerset’s foreign policy events
Matters began well for Somerset, who defeated the Scots at the Battle of Pinkie in September 1547. However, the strategy soon began to unravel. The forts proved difficult and expensive to garrison, the English could not capture the strategically significant castles at Dunbar and Edinburgh, Somerset underestimated the amount of cooperation between Scotland and France and failed to block the Firth of Forth properly thereby enabling the French to relieve Edinburgh. In the process the French were able to gain control of the young Queen Mary, who was duly taken to France in August 1548 to marry the Dauphin, the heir to the French throne.
This had disastrous consequences for Somerset. He had engaged in a military strategy that proved unaffordable at a time of financial pressure.
Moreover, he had failed in his political objective: to secure the marriage of Queen Mary and King Edward. To make matters worse for Somerset, the deteriorating relationship with France led in 1549 to the threat of war and the prospect of a French invasion of southern England - at precisely the moment when he was at his most vulnerable as a result of the rebellions which in turn heightened resentment among members of the Privy Council about his autocratic style of government.
Northumberland’s foreign policy
Northumberland, on the other hand, was able to reduce foreign policy expenditure in order to help stabilise the Crown’s finances. He ended the wars against Scotland and France. To end the French war Northumberland was forced to return Boulogne to the French. Though this might have been perceived as a humiliating defeat, it did serve to bring about an immediate improvement in the Crown’s financial position. The occupation of Boulogne had proved a constant drain on resources. Moreover, the French were willing
to pay the substantial sum of £133,333 to recover the port. This financial gain was reinforced by the abandonment of the remaining English garrisons in Scotland; the financial benefit from this clearly outweighed any fears about continuing French influence over affairs in Scotland.
