Tudor Rebellion Causes

Nevertheless, dynasty was still a cause of Tudor rebellions but was replaced by succession especially as Henry VIII did not have an heir and he himself did not have a legitimate claim to the throne. This occurred with the political coup of Lady Jane Grey in 1553 and Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554 because of Henry VIII’s reinstatement of both Mary and Elizabeth who had both been previously removed from succession. The treason acts help to reduce rebellion as it became easier to convict people of treason but by the end of the period the Tudor dynasty itself was far more secure meaning that Wyatt never made public his desire to overthrow Mary as the Tudor regime was now accepted. Politically motivated rebellions always involved faction.

During the years of 1547-1553 England experienced a handful of serious rebellions during the six-year reign of

Their superior position towards the king and his patronage created an opposition – “evil councillors”, whose aim was to remove the favourites. All the previous points together with the king’s failure to exterminate disorder, chaos, corruption and misgovernment in the country degraded the Crown’s reputation and showed Henry’s shortcomings resulting in the outbreak of the Civil War.

Somerset lacked charm and made enemies easily. His arrogance and pride created resentment. He was a weak administrator who refused to listen to the experts. The crisis came for Somerset, in 1559 when he failed to deal decisively with rebellions in the west and in Norfolk (which had been partly caused by his own policies). As Dale Hoak points out "his colleagues decided to get rid of him at this point not because he supported the poor but because he was incompetent".

It could be argued that Henry VII was never seriously threatened by rebellions. Throughout Henry’s 24 year reign, only 5 disturbances occurred, showing that rebellion only preoccupied a short span of time within his reign. It is clear to say that the loyal rebellions, based around economical aims and issues, did not pose a threat to Henry as the rebels did not want to harm the crown, but change crown policies which eventually Henry did sacrifice. Nonetheless, whilst the disloyal rebellions aims were strong and threatening, they were poorly led and constructed and didn’t have the strength to personally damage Henry VII. To sum up, any rebellion would be a threat to a certain extent, but it

Tudor governments were relatively successful in dealing with the problem of rebellion, although this was more effective towards the end of the period than at the beginning shown through the decline in rebellion after 1549: only 5 English rebellions occurred as opposed to 10 before 1549. Over the course of the Tudor period the main aims of rebellions were only fully achieved in the rebellions of 1525, the Amicable Grant and 1553. In addition to this the reforms made to local government, policies directly implemented by central government and the effects of trials and retribution, such as Henry VII’s concessions made to the late 15th century pretenders, Lambert

Edmund Andros the governor prior to the Glorious Revolution was known for being an extremely strict man that strongly supported the Navigation acts and this is one reason why he was overthrown by Leislor. The rebellion established a rebellious attitude towards British domination, and reinforced the idea that the colonies were subject to British rule by their free will.

“Let them eat cake” is a very popular quote that you may have heard before. It was supposedly said by the Queen of France, Marie-Antoinette, during the late 18th century in the middle of an outbreak known as the French Revolution. There were many causes that lead to the Revolution, including the third estate´s predicament. They struggled with being denied basic rights, over taxation, and neglect from the monarchy.

After the end of the civil war, officers of the New Model Army, formed by Cromwell, decided to put Charles on trial. Parliament voted to negotiate with the King in order to come to a peace agreement, but that was met with a fierce rebuke from Cromwell and his army. In order to kill any hope for the King and to prevent any kind of compromise between the King and Parliament, one hundred and eighty members of Parliament were excluded, and forty five were imprisoned for showing resistance. This act of purging was described simply as a coup d'état. (23 Laughland) If the king is truly guilty and hated by his people, Cromwell wouldn’t have needed to perform this despicable action of arresting and barring Parliament members from their seats. At this point, the authority of Parliament that was supported by the Roundheads, over the King’s, has lost all its legality. Parliament became a military tool in the hand of Cromwell and his army. In addition to this, Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was the one who submitted a request to prosecute the King, which was naturally accepted by the one third of the Parliament left. A court with the name of ‘High Court of Justice’ was formed to be responsible for the King’s trial. (103-104 TURCHETTI)

In 1791 farmers tarred a tax collector and threatened to burn down houses.The Whiskey rebellion is what Alexander Hamilton called these events, it was farmers mostly in Pennsylvania rebelling against a whiskey tax. It was 1791, farmers rebelled against a whiskey tax, which later Washington led his army to stop, allowing him to empower his newly formed government.

Pollard)"crushing foreign policy failures" (Matusiak, 2005, p.32) striking in congruence with popular rebellions, occurring at a greater rate than had occurred in the whole rest of the Tudor era. Some of the most devastating (The Western Rebellion 1549, Ket's rebellion 1549 and Wyatt's Rebellion 1554) having been struck in Southern England; the centripetal seat of Tudor power. The impact of these incursions on the politico-administrative continuity of Tudor dominance was magnified by their concurrence with foreign war, escalating into the vacuum of localized administration exacerbated not only by ubiquitous famine and religious turmoil but also by the absence of a sufficiently strong magnate presence in several key counties. Despite this deficiency in localized administrative rule these factional conflicts, far from being the catalysts of a political crisis were indicative of the extent of dominance and stability of central authority; the effective suppression of civil rebellion illustrates that monarchical supremacy was sufficiently internally fortified against the "many-headed monster" (Matusiak, 2005, p. 35) of social insurrection directed at subverting

had now become a serious problem for the governor. When news of this revolt had

It was turbulent times for England during the 17th and 18th century. England was in an unquenchable thirst for more power. “During the 17th and 18th century, England was determined to subdue all lesser countries, especially Ireland” (Stevenson, 28). At the time, England was the dominating country, looking to expand their influence across the world. War broke out constantly as the conquest for more land continued. Moreover, war was constant with the three kingdoms, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Revolts in each kingdom also affected the country’s ability to participate in the war. As

Toward the end of Elizabeth’s reign, England faced many struggles such as unemployment and inflation. Because of failed crops and food shortages, there were riots and rebellions. Elizabeth sent the Earl of Essex, Robert Devereaux, to squash rebellions in Ireland, but instead started his own rebellion which caused him to be executed for treason in

Some MP’S were alarmed by others who printed the Grande Remonstrance to the public journal in order to make people see. The Parliament did not appreciate this fact as they did not want the other people to know about the politic affairs. Adding to this, a rebellion in Ireland broke down as Catholics rose up against their Protestant rulers and 400 of the Protestants were killed. A rumour spread that Charles was behind this rebellion to make England turn into a Catholic country. Having no intention to restore Catholicism or govern without any reference to the law, Charles did not understand why the MP’s feared the Catholic tyranny.