Mid Tudor crisis - History Forum ~ All Empires

I would have to say that I agree with you on different levels. Economically, I think you're right - even after a concerted effort by Paulet, Marquis of Winchester, under Mary's reign to attempt to reduce national debt and solvency, he only managed to restore around 1/3 of it. This may look like a fine figure in regards to the disasterous socio-economic conditions of the time, but much of this was caused by factors frankly out of the mid-tudor monarch's control. The concentration of trade to London because of the Antwerp "funnel", leading to the decline of other commerical towns such as Bristol, and the subsequent increase in the ruthlessness of the guilds were all factors which no monarch could do much about. It is easily to blame such monarchs by the benefit of hindsight - especially about the "Antwerp funnel"; as Philip's inquistions in the Netherlands and the duke of Alva's campaigns against the sea-beggars and the Dutch orange rebels caused in some respects the decline of England's main trading post on the continent. Although it has been said that Mary tried to remedy this by in part patroning the men who created the 1555 Muscovy company, if England lost Antwerp, she was really stuck for economic routes - the Hanse enjoyed almost exploitative (aided by the debasement of the coinage...) advantage over the English merchants because of Edward IV's treaty of Utrecht in 1474 (and we know what happened with Henry VII when he tried to stop the domination of the Hanse...) and England couldn't really do much about getting to grips with the new world, as it did not want to offend its Hapsburg ally. Moreover, it has been speculated by some that England was in a mini-ice age, and therefore arable land declined (these changes can happen extremely quickly - in the Elizabethan period it was hot enough in the midlands to grow grapes apparently!). Obviously, with Somerset's debasement of the coinage and Mary's excessive loans we can attribute <sarcasm>some</sarcasm> blame, but in many respects the abstract economic theories that we today possess give us a hindsight-based view that does no favours to our perception of this period in history. For example, although we could blame Mary's predecessors for negligence in regards to changing customs rates (Mary's customs rates book was decisive - it remained in some form until 1830!) which had not been changed since 1507 (in light of the massive economic changes!), such concepts over a large scale of time were probably not known about. For example, Gresham's law - now taken for granted - was not fulfilled until Northumberland's presidency. This law basically entailed that with bad and good coin in circulation, people would hoard good coin and spend bad coin, causing again some of the conditions of debasement (again, Mary realised this and attempted to reverse it - I do feel she -or rather her ministers?... - is a rather misunderstood character economically) and Jean Bodin's law, showing the difference between nominal and real value, only really was recognised until quite late in this period - we cannot attribute current economic mindsets to these people - even men such as Gresham, Paulet, Empson, Dudley etc. I think I would have to agree with Loades when he states that much of the reign of Northumberland and Mary was due to luck - and in many respects their plights were due to the conditions in which they lived rather than anything else...except in politics...

Politically, I believe that there clearly was a crisis - on the one hand we have a minor who is being ruled by a Lord protector and then President of the council who preside over a cabinet of almost exclusively protestant ministers and gentry (...who, as regards to my last point, won't let anti-enclosure go through...) and then a woman who has such strong religious sympathies that she will in some respects allow her foreign policy to be determined by them (Paul IV anyone?). 02bburco (I think - we share many views on this period) and I generally have a little bit of a problem with the view of those such as Elton and Dickens about those such as Northumberland - I find Elton's accusation of Northumberland as being "machiavellian" as being ironically quite completentary in a logical sense - all good politicians were (and still are...) like this, and need such qualities to succeed!). Regard figures such as Cromwell, who acted like Northumberland in the "negative" way that Elton speaks about (...although he doesn't have a problem with knocking Wolsey - I'll bet Elton was a protestant!), who aren't really criticised in the same way - Foxes' "acts and monuments"/"book of martyrs" has a lot to answer for... However, I do believe that in many ways, the orthodox view of Northumberland and Mary is perhaps even stronger when one reads historians such as Christopher Haigh and A.G. Dickens (Haigh doesn't think that Mary's restoration was a failure though, unlike Dickens...) - because these two have based their conclusions on almost exclusively grass-roots sources (and the Orthodox views came mainly from top-down sources...) and have come to a similar conclusion to those such as Elton, I think we can consider the verdict possibly secure (just an idea to toy around with - I personally am a firm believer in Loades and Tittlers' interpretations of the period).

I think my main position in a nutshell is...

...Somerset, Edward Seymour...WHY?

Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 26-Sep-2008 at 23:37