Ketts Rebellion Wasn’t A Threat Flashcards
(23 cards)
How did the rebels show loyalty to Edward VI?
They praised the king in their demands and blamed only local officials and landowners — not the monarchy or system of government.
What kind of support did Kett’s Rebellion lack that made it less threatening?
No members of the nobility or clergy joined the rebellion — it had no elite backing.
Why do Tudor governments fear noble-led rebellions more than peasant ones like Kett’s?
Elite involvement, as in the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), posed a direct threat to royal power; Kett’s rebellion was a localised, lower-class uprising.
How was Kett’s Rebellion geographically limited?
It was centred in East Anglia (especially Norfolk), and other key regions like London, the southeast, and the north remained stable.
What military mistake did Robert Kett make that weakened the rebellion?
He abandoned Mousehold Heath, a defensible position, to fight at Dussindale, where the rebels were quickly defeated.
How effective was the government’s military response after Northampton’s failure?
Warwick crushed the rebellion within a month of arriving, showing a swift and decisive suppression.
Why did the rebels’ control of Norwich not pose a long-term threat?
They didn’t establish a real alternative government — their local rule at Mousehold Heath was temporary and lacked national ambition.
What was the impact of Kett’s Rebellion on national politics?
It damaged Somerset’s reputation but did not result in major political or structural change in the government.
How did Warwick’s use of martial law reduce further rebellion?
Brutal executions and firm enforcement of royal authority acted as a deterrent, reasserting control and discouraging future uprisings.
Why did the rebels’ failure to coordinate with other rebellions weaken their threat?
Despite other uprisings in 1549 (like the Prayer Book Rebellion), Kett’s Rebellion remained isolated — there was no national coordination to overwhelm the government.
How did the social class of the rebels limit the rebellion’s potential
A: As mostly peasants, artisans, and small farmers, they lacked the resources, influence, and networks needed to sustain a long-term political movement.
Why did the lack of foreign involvement make the rebellion less dangerous?
No foreign powers supported or exploited the unrest, unlike during other Tudor crises (e.g., Mary I’s reign), which made the rebellion easier to contain.
What does the failure to inspire copycat rebellions suggest about its threat level?
The rebellion didn’t spark further risings elsewhere, suggesting limited national appeal or influence.
Why is the rebels’ faith in negotiation a sign of limited threat?
A: Their willingness to talk with royal heralds and accept pardons shows they didn’t intend to overthrow the regime — they hoped for reform, not revolution.
How did Warwick’s quick re-establishment of order affect perceptions of the rebellion?
A: His fast success restored confidence in royal authority and signalled that the Tudor state remained strong and functional.
What does Kett’s execution say about how the state viewed the rebellion?
While he was executed, the government did not carry out mass political purges or system changes — suggesting they saw it as manageable unrest, not existential threat.
How did the rebels’ reliance on negotiation over violence reduce the threat?
They negotiated with heralds and accepted offers of pardon — showing they hoped for reform from the government, not its destruction.
Why does the lack of an ideological alternative make the rebellion less threatening?
A: The rebels didn’t propose a new system of government or religion — they wanted fairer treatment within the existing structure.
Why did the failure to win over major towns or garrisons beyond Norwich limit the rebellion’s impact?
Other urban centres and military forces stayed loyal, preventing the rebellion from expanding into a national crisis.
Why did the rebellion not create a dynastic or succession crisis?
Unlike rebellions like Wyatt’s (1554), Kett’s Rebellion didn’t aim to change the monarchy or challenge the Tudor succession.
How did the existing Tudor surveillance and control mechanisms help contain the rebellion?
The government used networks of informers, propaganda, and martial law to rapidly respond and limit support for the rebels.
Why does the lack of coordination with discontented regions (e.g. Cornwall, the West Country) reduce the threat?
Although 1549 saw multiple rebellions, Kett’s Rebellion remained geographically isolated, missing the chance to become a wider national revolt.
How does the rebellion’s relatively short duration show its limited threat?
The rebellion lasted just over a month from taking Norwich to defeat at Dussindale — it never had time to seriously destabilise the regime.
