When looking back at the year 1536, Thomas Cromwell must have questioned the merits of astrology. In January, one astrologer, John Robyns, advised him that ‘nothing noteworthy is to be expected’.1 Robyns clearly did not predict the imminent death of Katherine of Aragon, the fall of Anne Boleyn or the outbreak of an insurrection so large that it had the potential to threaten Henry VIII’s grasp on the throne – the largest popular revolt in English history.2 The Pilgrimage of Grace was indeed a massive rebellion against the policies of the Crown and those closely identified with Thomas Cromwell. The underlying causes of the insurrection and the motivation of the participants has been the subject of much debate and controversy among historians and a consensus has not been achieved.
At the start of the New Year 1536, it is probable that Henry VIII thought that the worst of his tribulations in matters of religion had passed. Rome had been repudiated and Parliament had acquiesced in the king’s desire to be recognised as the Supreme Head of the Church within his own realm. His treatment of Katherine of Aragon may have aroused condemnation and censure but Henry had escaped any meaningful retribution by her nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. Anne Boleyn had borne him (another) daughter and was pregnant again, undoubtedly desperate for the chance to present Henry with his longed-for son and heir. The queen and her evangelical adherents must have had grounds for optimism – the Succession Act of 1534, which named Henry and Anne’s issue as heirs, and the executions of Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher all pointed towards a new era.
What, then, did happen to bring about the Pilgrimage of Grace? And to what extent was it religiously motivated? How did a situation arise where such a vast uprising in the region was made possible? What was the perception of Henry’s behaviour abroad? Northern power structures will be examined in due course but initially the religious flux in the realm needs to be addressed. To explore the religious motivation, the events preceding the rebellion and the use of rhetoric (from both sides) in harnessing religious sympathy will be identified.
The Act of Supremacy of 1534 is crucial to the Henrician Reformation/experiment. Clearly the king could not have legally pursued his policies and reformation without it. It is therefore fundamental to an appreciation of the context in which the Reformation was enforced. The king had annexed the power of visitation, the power to discipline the clergy, the right to correct opinion, supervision of canon law and doctrine and the right to try heretics.3 However, in 1535, Henry delegated his ecclesiastical powers to the Lord Privy Seal, Thomas Cromwell, when he appointed him vicegerent, or vicar general, and Cromwell has become synonymous with the ‘policy and police’4 or the enforcement of the Reformation in the 1530s. According to Bush, ‘Cromwell’s vicegerency arose from the government’s urgent need to conduct a survey of the English Church following the break with Rome’.5 Whilst this might well be true, it also was typical of Henry to delegate power to a favoured minister, as he himself had such distaste for everyday administration and the minutiae of detail this concerned. As might be expected, Thomas Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury, also had a role to play in the Henrician Reformation, but it is interesting to note that the experiment became synonymous with Cromwell, a layman.
Before examining any evidence for resistance to the Henrician Reformation in these years, it is necessary to highlight the significance of An Act Extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome6 and both the First and Second Henrician Injunctions. The 1536 act, extinguishing the ‘pretended power and usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome, by some called the Pope’, was the final piece of legislation severing England’s ties with Rome. The act made it illegal to ‘extol, set forth, maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction or power of the Bishop of Rome’ with effect from the first day of August 1536. Anyone guilty of so doing and ‘being thereof lawfully convicted according to the laws of this realm … shall incur … penalties, pains and forfeitures’. Clearly this statute is absolutely central to the enforcement of the Royal Supremacy and any changes, doctrinal or otherwise, resulting from it. These statutes and the promulgation of the Ten Articles of the Faith of the Church of England and the dissemination of the First Henrician Injunctions underpinned the king’s religious policy prior to the autumn of 1536.
In early January 1536, the Imperial Ambassador to Rome, Dr Pedro Ortiz, wrote to Katherine of Aragon that the ‘intention of the pope is that … prayers shall be offered for the Queen and Princess, and the Saints who are fighting for the faith in England’.7 Dr Ortiz’s communications throughout 1536 do appear to be both lively and dogmatic but they are also prone to exaggeration and a scant regard for detail. However, his letter to Katherine as she lay dying at Kimbolton (exiled by Henry and forbidden from seeing her daughter, Princess Mary) does illustrate that the English Reformation was by no means perceived abroad as the abject capitulation of Henry’s subjects. This can also be seen in the writings of Johannes Cochlaeus. On 6 January, he wrote to Henry that he was encouraged by the constancy of Fisher and More, whom Henry had put to death, and enlarged on the crimes into which the king has been led by his ‘lawless passion’.8
The Reformation was disseminated and enforced by injunctions, proclamations and statutes and in February 1536, a draft Act of Parliament was drawn up ‘against pilgrimages and superstitious worship of relics’.9 In March 1536, we witness Cranmer hard at work on the preliminaries. Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, wrote to Charles V:
The prelates here are daily in communication in the house of the archbishop of Canterbury for the determination of certain articles and for the reform of ecclesiastical ceremonies … they do not admit … purgatory … the use of chrism … the festivals of the saints and images …10
It would be only natural that fear and uncertainty would have been present within the realm, as previously held certainties and practices were swept away. In February, Chapuys reported that the people were in despair and seeking help from abroad; and in April, a priest in Cumberland was reported to Cromwell for having said that 40,000 would rise up in one day. Henry himself was ‘apprehensive of some commotion’ in June when the people expected the restoration of the Princess Mary, following the fall and execution of Anne Boleyn in May.11
The pace of reform, however, continued. The Act Extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome was followed by an Act of Convocation for the Abrogation of Certain Holydays, especially during harvest time, which was passed in August.12 The First Henrician Injunctions were drawn up by Thomas Cromwell and issued in August 1536 and instructed the clergy on the changes in religion – they were an accompaniment to the Ten Articles of the Anglican Church.13 The clergy in convocation had acquiesced with the Ten Articles and rejected Purgatory, as well as accepting the abrogation of holy days. Purgatory and prayers for the dead had been a central tenet of the medieval Church and were woven into the fabric of local religious culture, which also set great store by the veneration of local saints and pilgrimages.14 At the same time as these disturbing innovations were taking place, the monasteries were being dissolved (the legislation of empowerment having been enacted in February–April of 1536).15 The timing of the outbreak of the Northern Rebellions is significant. It surely can be no coincidence that a rebellion which commenced no more than eight weeks after the First Henrician Injunctions would have been motivated by the changes in religion.
It is appropriate, at this juncture, to look at some instances of opposition to the Henrician religious innovations prior to the outbreak of the Lincolnshire and Yorkshire risings. Yorkshire and Lincolnshire were by no means the only counties where dissent was evident; it was indeed a concern in ‘every part of the realm’.16 For example, the Vicar of Stanton-Lacy in Shropshire was examined before the Council in the Marches in September–October 1535 for having failed to delete the pope’s name from his service books. Bishop Rowland Lee forwarded the papers to Cromwell but no more was heard of it.17 Bristol, which had been the base of the evangelical Hugh Latimer, was the setting for what Elton has described as ‘violent exchanges’ from the pulpit between the old and new.18
Preaching was an important tool in promulgating the Crown’s religious message throughout the country prior to and after the Pilgrimage. A Friar Brynstan preached at Glastonbury Abbey in March 1536, and clearly his views would have been at odds with Cromwell’s but perhaps more representative of the groundswell of opinion. He spoke about those who embraced the ‘new books’, calling them ‘adulterers’ and ‘filthy lechers’. He further accused them of being full of envy and malice, whilst being ready to wrong their neighbours. Master Lovell, in Dorset, was reported for disloyal preaching in the summer of 1536. He had encouraged the people to keep holy days and offer candles, as well as cautioning them against heretics and the practice of reading the New Testament in English. A prior in St Alban’s Abbey, Hertfordshire, denounced Cromwell and Anne Boleyn as the maintainers of all heresies and asked what should be done about those whose purpose it was to destroy his religion?19 However, the sub-prior of Woburn, Bedfordshire, sought pardon for the scruples he had entertained regarding the Royal Supremacy and his erroneous estimation of More and Fisher.20 The First Injunctions were issued in August 1536 and as early as 30 September, Sir Henry Parker was reporting of opposition in Hertfordshire: the curates and sextons of Stortford and Little Hadham had kept the holy day with high and solemn ringing and singing, contrary to the king’s injunctions.21
How were events in England perceived outside the realm prior to the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage? Charles V and King Francis I of France had done little to interfere in developments in England since the break with Rome. It would be hard to determine a motive for any potential French involvement, apart from wanting to appease the papacy and perhaps stir up some more trouble for their perennial enemies, the English. The ‘Most Christian King’, Francis, was more than preoccupied with Hapsburg–Valois rivalry and the Italian Wars. Indeed these priorities had led him to form an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent and the Ottoman Turks.22
Certainly a little more surprising was the laissez-faire attitude of the Emperor and King of Spain, Charles V. Charles was, after all, the nephew of Katherine of Aragon and her cruel and shameful treatment at the hands of her husband was both a family and diplomatic matter. For all that, Charles’ priorities lay elsewhere. He was embroiled in the Italian Wars and deep-rooted enmity with the Valois and Francis I. His role as Holy Roman Emperor brought him the problems of repelling the Turks and also the religious difficulties which ensued from Luther’s stance in Germany. Moreover, he was responsible for his dominions in the New World. Apart from providing moral support to Katherine and Mary and being a potentially threatening presence, Charles had not become directly involved in the affairs of England.23
So, in the period leading up to the Pilgrimage of Grace, there had been no direct or practical involvement from the papacy or European monarchs in the English political or religious scene. Although a second excommunication had been drawn up against Henry in August 1535, a Bull of Deprivation was not finally approved in consistory until January 1536.24 In the middle of the month, Chapuys reported to Charles V that the people were indignant because of Henry and Anne’s gleeful rejoicing at Katherine’s death (she died on 7 January). Poison and grief, he suggested, were being blamed for the queen’s death. He then advised that, given the people’s indignation, the time was ripe for the pope to proceed with the ‘necessary remedies’. The following month, whilst reporting on the state of religion in England, Chapuys advised Charles that if the matter were ten times more unjust, none would dare to contradict Henry without outside support.25 Around this time, rumours were circulating in Scotland that Francis I ‘abhorred’ Henry’s break with Rome.26 According to Chapuys, the king had determined that curates hearing confessions should not absolve anyone who did not accept that the pope was the Antichrist and the king the Supreme Head of the Church.27
Having had experience of religious turmoil in Germany, Charles was aware of potential trouble in England. The emperor informed Chapuys that the withdrawal of Henry from the Church of Rome was truly a matter of great importance, the outcome of which could be division and confusion in his realm. Charles, however, was probably not concerned with internal strife in England. He must have feared a relatively powerful fellow ruler at close proximity to the German Lutheran princes. Reginald Pole (an exile in Italy and a Plantagenet cousin of the king who had refused to agree with the Royal Supremacy) expressed his dissatisfaction with the inertia of the papacy and the emperor shortly afterwards in not enforcing the laws of the Church against Henry.28
A few weeks later, in mid-April 1536, Charles showed his hand. He informed Chapuys that he had persuaded the pope to suspend the Declaration of Privation against Henry and the appeal to the secular arm (Charles in his capacity as Holy Roman Emperor) until Charles advised him to do so.29 His letter to his ambassador was written in the context of proposed war with France and he desired to demonstrate his amity towards Henry. This suggests that Henry was, in reality, not a player on the chessboard of European politics: the issue of England’s break with Rome was clearly not a priority for the emperor. Charles simply wanted to avoid Henry giving any sort of support to Francis I.
At the same time, Dr Ortiz advised the emperor’s wife, Isabella, that the English were confirming their heresies by translating the Bible, altering many passages to support their errors. Meanwhile, Charles instructed Chapuys to conduct negotiations with Cromwell with regard to the possibility of Henry’s reconciliation with the Holy See. Chapuys continued to inform his master of the developments in England and shortly after advised that the English Church sought to ‘usurp’ the foundations for the redemption of the dead – the doctrine of Purgatory and the practice of Masses for souls. William Weston of Lincoln College in Oxford felt the need to preach a sermon at the university in which he said that although he had been commanded to avoid mentioning Purgatory, it was a heresy to deny it.30
Dissatisfaction with the Henrician injunctions and the direction in which the Church in England was proceeding was clearly not confined to the North. About this time, Chapuys was able to gleefully report of the fall of Anne Boleyn: the people, he said, were joyous at the ruin of the concubine and hopeful of Princess Mary’s restoration.31 Such was the state of affairs in the spring and summer of 1536, prior to the issue of the First Henrician Injunctions in August and the ensuing uprisings at the start of October.
On the domestic front, the disgrace and fall of Anne Boleyn may have given conservative factions grounds for optimism and the possibility of a fresh start. Anne was a figurehead for the evangelical cause and had been found guilty of sexual crimes then associated with witchcraft.32 Anne’s rise and haughty demeanour had not endeared her to many and some were certain to believe slanderous accusations against her. The accusation of witchcraft and entrapment had also been levelled at Henry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, by her detractors. Elizabeth was also a commoner who had been raised up by her marriage to King Edward IV. The fact that the king had been so anxious to be rid of Anne probably had her opponents rubbing their hands with delight and anticipation. However, Henry immediately remarried – to Jane Seymour – and the First Henrician Injunctions were issued in late summer. The conservatives had experienced a false dawn. At about the same time, the Plantagenet exile Reginald Pole was putting an interesting slant on the Kildare Rebellion in Ireland (1534), when he advised Cardinal Contarini that the Earl of Kildare had been condemned to death for courageously vindicating the pope’s authority in Ireland.33
In the year which witnessed the deaths of two queens and the crowning of another by mid-summer, as well as a change in religion and dissolution of monastic houses, it is hardly surprising that people were susceptible to rumours. These circulated in England in the autumn of 1536. John Tregonwell reported to Cromwell from Cornwall on 5 September and said that, prior to his arrival, there had been rumours that he was coming to remove crosses, chalices and other ‘idols’ of the churches.34 On 19 September, the Duke of Norfolk advised that an organ maker in Norwich deserved death because he intended to organise an insurrection in the shire.35 Rumours were readily believed in Lincolnshire prior to the outbreak of rebellion there at the start of October.
What then of the North? How was power used in the region? And in what ways did the Crown seek to exercise its authority and enforce religious changes in this peripheral area? Was the region really so remote and backward as to be a refuge for lost causes, as Rachel Reid claimed? The North was not isolated in its displays of opposition to the Henrician religious changes, was it atypical in the exercise of royal power and the structure of its society?
Any discussion of the Pilgrimage and its aftermath in the region, particularly in terms of patronage and reward, needs to be underpinned by an analysis of power. Power, of course, was vested in the person of the monarch, but how was it disseminated? Henry was aided in the enforcement of his policies by the legislative sanction of Parliament and by the Privy Council, the chief executive instrument of the Crown. The council was comprised of members of the nobility and powerful gentry who met with him on a regular basis to offer advice, frame laws and govern the realm. Thomas Cromwell, as Lord Privy Seal, was a pivotal figure. Although, in principle, all land belonged to the king, the ruling elites were the land-owning nobles and gentry who attended both Parliament and Court. They controlled and enforced law and order, government and administration in the localities.
Of course, England’s system had been feudal in medieval times but (in common with much of continental Europe) by the sixteenth century the state had assumed more responsibility and the government was becoming more centralised. However, governance in the localities was dependent upon the co-operation of both the ruling elites and an increasingly numerous gentry. In return for their services in office, the gentry received prestige, patronage and the potential for profit. By the use of royal commissions, the king conferred on individuals ad hoc legal powers to perform certain specified tasks in his name.36 Treasons and felonies were dealt with by sheriffs and Justices of the Peace and the link between Crown and community was maintained.
The ‘North’ encompassed a proportionately large geographical area, if it is to be viewed as the region north of the River Trent. Yorkshire was the largest county in the region. The northern nobility was comprised of the leading figures of the Earl of Derby in Lancashire, the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Westmorland. In addition, there was the Earl of Cumberland, Lord Dacre, Lord Darcy and, further south, the Earl of Shrewsbury. To be a noble was to be prestigious and the gentry continued to serve their superior lords in the 1530s, as an organising feature of northern society. As Hoyle has stated, power was personal, and the nobility had the potential to raise large contingents of troops, particularly if they had deep roots in an area. Local loyalties were an important factor and men were mustered under local noble captains. This situation, however, was not unique to the North: nobles from elsewhere in the realm were equally able to raise and command their tenants during this period and the northern nobility did not present an increased threat to the Crown.37
The nobility and gentry thus exercised power in the region and were the conduits between periphery and core. Commissions of the Peace enforced the law and there had been, intermittently, specific councils set up to govern the North. The Council of the North had originated in the private council of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III, but this expired with his death and Henry VII did not make specific arrangements for a council in the region. However, a new Council of the North was established in 1525, on the recommendation of Cardinal Wolsey, and was attached to the Duke of Richmond’s household. Richmond (Henry Fitzroy) was the king’s illegitimate son and was appointed lieutenant. The northern magnates – the Percys, Nevilles, Cliffords and Dacres – resented the council as an intrusion and by 1530, Richmond was replaced by the Bishop of Durham as president and its jurisdiction was confined to Yorkshire.38
The pre-1536 councils served to act on the king’s behalf and report back to him but their records have virtually disappeared.39 The council came to be a significant feature in northern society and governance in the aftermath of the Pilgrimage of Grace, as will be discussed in due course. The Commissions of the Peace, and indeed any councils, had to be staffed by appropriate members of the nobility and gentry. These appointments were important in terms of reward and patronage, as will be discussed in a later chapter. However, it should be acknowledged that Northumberland suffered from administrative problems as a result of the paucity of resident gentry in the county.40 This dearth of suitably qualified gentry will be examined and discussed when we turn to consider the government of the North in the wake of the 1536 risings. In addition, the far outposts of the region were on the border with Scotland and were governed in a frontier fashion. This area was divided into three marches: the West, Middle and East marches. A warden was appointed to each march in order to defend this militarised area. Another distinctive character of the region was that it encompassed three palatinates: Cheshire, Lancashire and Durham. The king’s writ did not run in these areas and they were administratively distinct from the English law court system. The governance of these palatinates was exercised in the name of the lord of each: in Cheshire and Lancashire, the king; in Durham, the bishop.41
As Professor Steven Ellis has stated, the North did possess a pronounced regional identity, a varied geographical terrain, a distance from the centre, a land border (with Scotland) and a marcher society. The far north was relatively poor and barren; a land of moorland waste, mountain and forest. The insecurity of a border/marcher region obviously presented special challenges for effective governance. Thus, the Crown was obliged to delegate power in a fashion that was rarely required in lowland England. This had resulted in a mass delegation of power to the region’s magnates and strengthened their position as marcher lords. These regional magnates resented the intrusion of the Duke of Richmond’s council. These magnates also could call upon their manraed (tenants and political affinity) when required. The consequence of all this was that royal governance was not nearly as effective in these areas and the structures of power had evolved differently.42 The North, broadly speaking, was a case apart and distinct. The far north was certainly a region which swam against the tide of Tudor centralisation and uniformity.
In summary, Henry VIII’s religious innovations and the way in which they were enacted and enforced by the government through its power structures up to the autumn of 1536 sets the scene. It has been acknowledged that although the North was a distinct region, distant from the core, and presented its own particular problems of governance, it was by no means alone in producing examples of dissent within the realm. Evidence that Henry’s changes were unpopular in other areas of the country demonstrates that the North was not unique in this respect. In addition, the perspectives of foreign commentators have shed light on how Henry’s policies were viewed abroad. It will be necessary to analyse developments in England in a wider context given the break with Rome, the influence of Lutheran theology and the general political intrigues in continental Europe.
So, what actually happened to precipitate the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace? The risings will be considered in the subsequent chapter and a narrative of the events is essential in enabling an understanding of the impact of the movement on the North in terms of governance and religiosity: the fate of the protagonists will serve to illuminate how power and religion were intertwined in the region in the aftermath.
1 L&P, Vol. X: 121.
2 Fletcher and MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, p.45.
3 W.J. Sheils, The English Reformation 1530–1570, Harlow, 1989.
4 G.R. Elton, Policy and Police: The Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell, Cambridge, 1972.
5 Bush, Michael, The Pilgrims’ Complaint: A Study of Popular Thought in the Early Tudor North (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p.47.
6 The Statues of the Realm (Stat. Realm), Volume III, A. Luder (ed.), London, (1810–28), pp.663–66; L&P, Vol. XI: 1087, 8 June.
7 L&P, Vol. X: 11 (quotation).
8 L&P, Vol. X: 34.
9 British Library, Cotton, Vespasian, C/XIV/2, f.47; L&P, Vol. X: 246.
10 Calendar of Letters, Despatches and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain, Preserved in the Archives of Simancas and Elsewhere (CSP Sp.), Pascual De Gayangos (ed.), Ontario, 1536–38: p.601.
11 L&P, Vol. X: 308;TNA, SP1/103, f.139 (L&P, Vol. X: 693); L&P, Vol. X: 1036.
12 L&P, Vol. XI: 270.
13 Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, p.175.
14 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–c. 1580, London, 1992 pp.338 & 347.
15 Bush, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of 1536, p.424.
16 Elton, Policy and Police, Chapter 3, pp.83–170.
17 TNA, SP1/96, ff.210–13 (L&P, Vol. XI: 408).
18 Elton, Policy and Police, 1972, p.112.
19 TNA, SP1/102, f.45 (L&P, Vol. X: 318); L&P, Vol. X: 1140; L&P, Vol. XI: 354.
20 L&P, Vol. XI: 1239.
21 L&P, Vol. XI: 514.
22 G.R. Elton, Reformation Europe 1517–1559, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1999) pp.79, 109 & 112.
23 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII. Although Charles had attempted to prevent the divorce of Henry and Katherine by putting pressure on Pope Clement VII and encouraging delaying tactics, he had not become militarily involved. Indeed, in April 1536, just a few months after Katherine’s death, he appeared to entertain rapprochement with Henry and this was reinforced by the execution of Anne Boleyn the following month (see p.335).
24 Ibid., pp.334, 335 & 282.
25 L&P, X: 141; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.335.
26 BL, Cotton, Caligula, B/III, f.195.
27 L&P, Vol. X: 494.
28 L&P, Vol. X: 575 & 619.
29 L&P, Vol. X: 666.
30 L&P, X: 698, 699, 752 & 950 (The Ten Articles, the First Definition of the Faith, produced by Henry as Supreme Head, was published this year).
31 L&P, Vol. X: 908. See also Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, p.339.
32 Ronald H. Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Tudor England, 1485–1603, London, 1991, p.62.
33 L&P, Vol. XI: 376.
34 TNA, SP1/106, f.134 (L&P, Vol. XI: 405).
35 TNA, SP1/106, f.183 (L&P, Vol. XI: 470).
36 David Loades, Power in Tudor England, Basingstoke, 1997, pp.4, 11, 24 & 45.
37 Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s, p.39; Gunn, Grummitt & Cools, War, State, and Society in England and the Netherlands, p.317.
38 Loades. Power in Tudor England, pp.123–4.
39 Ibid., p.32.
40 Ibid., p.30.
41 Ibid., p.31.
42 Steven G. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: The Making of the British State, Oxford, 1995, pp.15, 20, 40, 41, 47 & 48.