A Mid-Tudor Crisis?

Surely the Lady Jane Grey affair was a political crisis?

Also, does Northumberlands coup of 1550 and Somersets execution of 1551, illustrate that there was also a political crisis during Edwards reign.

(Although, I follow what Elton writes, im also trying to play devils advocate)

Hold up, though, people are storming in saying "yeah, there was a crisis" without actually defining what a crisis for a country is. I mean, in my view, if you contrast the mid-Tudor state with say, revolutionary France, or the Great Depression in America in particular, or, to use a more relevant example, the complete disaster with Spain's economy during the Tudor era, I think it's impossible to conclude there was ever really a crisis over the 9 years. Sure, there were some problems, but a) they were sorted out, and b) they were relatively minor when you consider what could have been going on. I mean, there was never a huge fight between the Catholics and Protestants, as in France in the 1560s and 1570s, was there, for example?

Hold up, though, people are storming in saying "yeah, there was a crisis" without actually defining what a crisis for a country is. I mean, in my view, if you contrast the mid-Tudor state with say, revolutionary France, or the Great Depression in America in particular, or, to use a more relevant example, the complete disaster with Spain's economy during the Tudor era, I think it's impossible to conclude there was ever really a crisis over the 9 years. Sure, there were some problems, but a) they were sorted out, and b) they were relatively minor when you consider what could have been going on. I mean, there was never a huge fight between the Catholics and Protestants, as in France in the 1560s and 1570s, was there, for example?

A 'complete disaster' in the Spanish economy? Well the English one was not too great either throughout the mid-Tudor period. Inflation spiralled out of control, with Somerset' s wars and the Great Debasement of the 1540s, followed by the collapse of trade with Antwerp in 1551. If that was not bad enough the movement to enclosure and pastoral farming needed less labour, resulting in greater vagrancy, indeed, so much so that by Elizabeth's reign they would have classes of their own. No one is jumping into anything, the question proposed was after all a question, not a statement. You also say there was never a huge fight between catholics and protestants, well yes no fights, but huge protests. Somerset's reign saw two rebellions: Western Rising and Kett's of 1549 - both large enough to do some lasting damage. So yes, there were major problems in both the economy and society to suggest there was a mid-Tudor crisis.

Yes, there were problems in the economy, but even the Spanish economy is at this time is never described as being 'a crisis' (far from it, it's the period of Spain's 'Golden Age', demonstrating that you cannot base a judgement of a period purely on the economy).

And "huge protests" to do with religion? The Western Rising I will grant you as being religiously motivated, but you can't describe it as 'huge' in the context of English society, as it was limited to Devon and Cornwall, and was in no danger of ever really spreading to London. In addition, Kett's rebellion was not religiously motivated (in fact, examiners often comment on the fact that many candidates make the mistake of thinking this), but was ultimately crushed. And actually if you're going to talk about any rebellion that was really a threat, it was Wyatt's rebellion, which came pretty close to success - but was still crushed.

I'm happy to accept there are different interpretations, but I don't think a few rebellions are anything major in the context of the period. Furthermore, no one talks of a 'crisis' when there was a peasants' rising in 1381, for example, because it was crushed. I think it's accurate to say there was some dissatisfaction amongst the English subjects, but they were relatively minor when you consider a) nothing changed because of them, and b) they were crushed by the authorities.

My personal view is that some historians have blown the mid-Tudor period up into a crisis, when at the time some unrest was to be expected. When you consider that the monarchy was never in any real lasting danger from the people of England, and the good Northumberland did for the economy, and Mary for our navy, I think it's only natural to conclude that a 'crisis' is a very negative description of the period.

My personal view still remains also. The English economy was not doing well under Somerset and Edward VI - indeed the only thing that saved it was Northumberland's policy of retrenchment. Meanwhile social divisions were sharper than ever, and the vagrancy simply grew and grew. Mary's rule was disastrous in what Haigh describes as a 'satellite state', and war with France in 1557/58 would only dampen any previous success, with the loss of Calais. What do you mean nothing changed because of the rebels? It was ultimately the rebels of Kett's rising that caused Somerset to lose support, with Northumblerland (who was by the way directly involved with Kett) ending his reign, accelerated by faction fighting. So, in fact whilst physically the rebels may have been crushed, their statement was enough - they hated enclosure and its associated abuses.

You mention the good Mary did for 'our navy'. She founded the Muscovy and Barbary company i believe (correct me if i'm wrong), and even then that's hardly unusual - most King's and Queen's get involved in some form of foreign exploration e.g. Henry VII, VIII and Elizabeth I. Mary did very little for England, only her councillors with regards to finance. Meanwhile the punitive policies of Northumberland only slowed the downhill roll of economy, society and politics. Yes, there was some achievement, but this was vastly outweighed by poor policies and economic disaster. Thus, my view remains.