Is it fair to describe English government in the years 1540 to 1562 as ‘consistently weak’?
During the period 1540-1562, the Tudor dynasty experienced some years of instability. When
compared to the consolidatory reign of Henry VII and the first twenty years of Henry VIII, the
final years of the latter’s reign and especially those of the ‘Little Tudors’ combined with the start
of Elizabeth I seemed to lack strength. However the term ‘consistently weak’ implies that every
aspect of the four Monarchs' reigns were weak - reinforcing the idea of a ‘mid-Tudor crisis’,
which is unrealistic. Each monarch had their own personal successes even if they were not the
huge triumphs of establishing a dynasty or breaking with Rome which occurred prior to the
period.
The last years of Henry VIII’s reign can be seen as consistently weak when looking through an
administrative and financial lens. From 1540 onwards Henry was without a Chief Minister after
rashly executing Cromwell, a support which he had relied upon for much of the previous
decade. This meant Henry no longer had someone to handle day to day government and the
nobility, allowing factionalisation to consume the Court. Factions distracted Henry from crucial
tasks in government, as he had to find a balance between the Conservatives, led by Norfolk,
who wanted religion to be more Catholic whilst modern Protestants were against this entirely.
Furthermore Henry’s expensive war with France meant that he had spent £2 million by 1546
despite not being able to afford it. The result of expensive policies was that all of the coinage
was debased leading to high inflation which negatively impacted the lives of ordinary people,
also much of the Church lands which had been collected by the Crown following the dissolution
of the monasteries were sold, giving Henry the added problem of more powerful nobles vying for
dominance in the Privy Chamber and beyond. Henry’s poor financial management brought
consistent weakness as England may not have been able to defend herself had she been
attacked, this risk was worsened by the factions who were constantly distracted from the
well-being of England and were focussing too much on themselves.
However there were aspects of Henrican government which were not weak. Firstly the prestige
which Henry’s foreign policy had achieved was very impressive. He finally achieved his aim of
becoming a ‘Renaissance Prince’ in 1544 when he captured the town of Boulogne in France,
humiliating King Francis in the process. Secondly the threat that was posed by the Pilgrimage of
Grace in 1536, had been overcome which, arguably, added stability to Henry’s position as King
as it had failed so dissenters knew there was little point in trying to rebel or undermine the King’s
position in any way. By showing England’s power as a warring nation and overcoming the
biggest Tudor revolt Henry solidified his position as a force to be reckoned with, certainly not a
‘consistently weak’ King.
The first half of Edward VI’s reign with Somerset as Lord Protector can be seen as ‘consistently
weak’. His administrative style was weak due to his lack of respect for the Regency Council
which led to factions being created between the nobility and Somerset ultimately being
overthrown as Protector in 1549. Somerset was also bound by the will of Henry VIII to follow his
aggressive policy in Scotland, with little success other than the Battle of Pinkie in 1547, though
after this all that is achieved is a wasted £600,000 on garrisoning which Northumberland was
During the period 1540-1562, the Tudor dynasty experienced some years of instability. When
compared to the consolidatory reign of Henry VII and the first twenty years of Henry VIII, the
final years of the latter’s reign and especially those of the ‘Little Tudors’ combined with the start
of Elizabeth I seemed to lack strength. However the term ‘consistently weak’ implies that every
aspect of the four Monarchs' reigns were weak - reinforcing the idea of a ‘mid-Tudor crisis’,
which is unrealistic. Each monarch had their own personal successes even if they were not the
huge triumphs of establishing a dynasty or breaking with Rome which occurred prior to the
period.
The last years of Henry VIII’s reign can be seen as consistently weak when looking through an
administrative and financial lens. From 1540 onwards Henry was without a Chief Minister after
rashly executing Cromwell, a support which he had relied upon for much of the previous
decade. This meant Henry no longer had someone to handle day to day government and the
nobility, allowing factionalisation to consume the Court. Factions distracted Henry from crucial
tasks in government, as he had to find a balance between the Conservatives, led by Norfolk,
who wanted religion to be more Catholic whilst modern Protestants were against this entirely.
Furthermore Henry’s expensive war with France meant that he had spent £2 million by 1546
despite not being able to afford it. The result of expensive policies was that all of the coinage
was debased leading to high inflation which negatively impacted the lives of ordinary people,
also much of the Church lands which had been collected by the Crown following the dissolution
of the monasteries were sold, giving Henry the added problem of more powerful nobles vying for
dominance in the Privy Chamber and beyond. Henry’s poor financial management brought
consistent weakness as England may not have been able to defend herself had she been
attacked, this risk was worsened by the factions who were constantly distracted from the
well-being of England and were focussing too much on themselves.
However there were aspects of Henrican government which were not weak. Firstly the prestige
which Henry’s foreign policy had achieved was very impressive. He finally achieved his aim of
becoming a ‘Renaissance Prince’ in 1544 when he captured the town of Boulogne in France,
humiliating King Francis in the process. Secondly the threat that was posed by the Pilgrimage of
Grace in 1536, had been overcome which, arguably, added stability to Henry’s position as King
as it had failed so dissenters knew there was little point in trying to rebel or undermine the King’s
position in any way. By showing England’s power as a warring nation and overcoming the
biggest Tudor revolt Henry solidified his position as a force to be reckoned with, certainly not a
‘consistently weak’ King.
The first half of Edward VI’s reign with Somerset as Lord Protector can be seen as ‘consistently
weak’. His administrative style was weak due to his lack of respect for the Regency Council
which led to factions being created between the nobility and Somerset ultimately being
overthrown as Protector in 1549. Somerset was also bound by the will of Henry VIII to follow his
aggressive policy in Scotland, with little success other than the Battle of Pinkie in 1547, though
after this all that is achieved is a wasted £600,000 on garrisoning which Northumberland was
