The majority of rebellions during Tudor England – 1485-1603 – did not carry out their principal objectives and reasons of this can be harshly classified by category in consequence of the weakness in the rebellion, or of the force of the reigning monarch. For example the poor control of a revolt beside the purely localised complaints would not have probably led to a successful rebellion and can be seen like defect of the rebels. On the one hand the stability and the force of the government would also lead to an easy defeat of risings. However, it would not be right to declare that all the rebellions not were successful; friendly Grant of 1525 is an example of retirement of government like direct consequence of revolt. Moreover, it would be simplistic to allege that the military defeat of a rebellion constitutes the revolt like failure automatically. Instead of that the principal objectives of much of rebellions to express the dissatisfaction bus with the demonstrations and not to pose a direct challenge on the diet. Consequently, though the rebels were demolished in the battle and were thus a failure, the rebels would have carried out their objectives by raising the conscience and as the comrades of historian says carried them, “their complaints with the knowledge of the government”.
The poor control of the rebellion can be seen as influencing factor if the rebels could carry out their objectives. The rebellion of the Scandinavian counts in 1569 and to rise of Oxfordshire of the exposure a 1596 effective lack of control which on the first evaluation would seem crucial for the successful revolt. It was said that the counts de Westmoreland and of Northumberland are undecided which could explain the difficulties that they had by receiving the support apart from their room – a fine lack of rebellious numbers could have played a part of determination in the results of the rebellion. Interesting, this tendency of poor control in the last part of the dynasty of Tudor can probably be dependent with the hesitation of people of the high society which, after 1549 became more and more less laid out to imply themselves of the open rebellion. Because the nobility were traditionally the chiefs of the revolt, this could explain the following lack of control. However, two rebellions – the friendly rebellion of Grant of 1525 and Kett of 1549 -, for various reasons, defy the idea that control was principal to the rebels carrying out their principal objectives. The chief of the rebellion Robert Kett de Kett which, because the word of Fletcher and MacCulloch was a chief inspired by “”, is an example of the failure of the revolt in spite of the dynamic order. Reciprocally the friendly rebellion of Grant was without identified chief. However, the rebellion can be seen as a one the most succeeded of throughout the period of Tudor while the rebels largely succeeded in resisting the attempts at government for another tax. It must thus conclude that control was not crucial while determining if the rebels carried out their principal objectives, as the examples exist rebellions failed with the dynamic chiefs and the successful revolts carried out by the masses.
A device which enters far while explaining why many rebellions did not carry out their principal objectives is that the complaints of the rebel consider mainly localised complaints. In all the reigns of the rebellions of monarchs of Tudor aiming at the local government, the land questions or religious meant that the support could not be increased apart from immediate sector, because the men of the people would have felt little constraint to revolt against nonrelevant questions with their lives. Yorkshire and the rebellions cornouaillaises for the period of Henry VII are examples of at which point the interested people were with their room and that they did not look at England like “entirety”. The complaints of the rebels cornouaillais in 1497 were directed to the advisers mauvais’ Morton of `and with the bawling, while they were offended by the application of the tax to demolish Warbeck in Scotland while the question was so distant it seemed unimportant. Later during the time it is plausible to look at the failure of the Westerner and the rebellions of Kett because an incapacity to coordinate as, had linked as a one, they could have made greater pressure on the government and could have succeeded in carrying out their principal objectives. To promote to reinforce the argument which them national questions in opposition to the localised objectives was integral with the successful revolt is the friendly rebellion of Grant which saw the country going up upwards against the tax required by Henry VIII for placer son invasion de la France. Les rebelles ont réussi en vigueur d’Henry abandonner complètement le Grant amical et leurs accomplissements sont dus en partie du refus au-dessus de beaucoup de comtés tels qu’East Anglia, Kent et crucialement Londres pour payer l’impôt. L’aversion pour l’impôt était un grief national – un que beaucoup pourraient allier au moment – et en conséquence ces comtés déjà dans la révolte ont eu l’effet de remplir de combustible la rébellion pendant que d’autres étaient alors encouragés à suivre le mouvement. L’incapacité de l’homme du peuple de regarder au delà des réclamations localisées et de ne pas exploiter des soucis de national pendant que les moyens d’unir le pays signifiaient qu’ils n’ont pas gagné des nombres et l’influence valables au-dessus du gouvernement. Les soucis locaux des rebelles peuvent être vus as a primary reason why many revolts failed to achieve their principal aims. Both the sheer military strength of the government and occasionally the clever use of propaganda to enhance the already present respect for monarchical authority can be seen as a further reason why rebels did not succeed. Wyatt’s rebellion in 1553 during the reign of Mary I is an example of the difficulties of assembling a force in opposition to the crown as, despite remaining silent about the plan to depose Mary in favour of Elizabeth, Wyatt only was able to gather 2,000 men against the Queen. Elizabeth I was, out of all Tudor monarchs, the most concerned with her image and the way the public perceived her. She worked hard both by going on progress through the country and through portraiture to promote the ideal of a ‘virgin queen’. Though other factors played a role it is important to highlight that the most stable period England since 1485 was those of the years 1558-1601. Another aspect influencing whether the rebel’s would achieve their principal aims, which is also determined by the strength of the government, is the superior military force of the regime. The 1486 Lambert Simnel uprising is an example how, when forced into pitched battle, the government could muster forces that outnumbered the rebels – in this instance Henry VII’s army was 4,000 men stronger. Though the government never had a standing army, there ability to outnumber the rebels in battle is a recurrent theme throughout the entire Tudor period. Even during Elizabeth’s reign the only major threat to her security she suffered – the1569 rebellion of the Northern Earls – were eventually defeated at Carlisle with government numbers of 10,000 versus a rebel strength of 6,000. Finally, respect for the rightful authority of the monarch was also influential in lessening support for the rebels and consequently making them less able to achieve their principal aims. Finally, however, though it is true that many revolts were not successful some rebellions were without doubt instrumental in changing government policies and thereby achieving their aims – the Amicable Grant. Furthermore, an examination into the purpose and intention of the rebels in the Pilgrimage of Grace shows that, though superficially the revolt appears to be a failure as the rebel’s agreed to back down and negotiate, their aims were not to pressurise the government through a military-style campaign. The use of ‘pilgrimage’ to describe the rebellion does in itself show the rebels aims to be peaceful and as merely wanting to bring to the attention of Henry VIII some of their grievances. The numerical strength of the rebels forced the king to agree with the requests and, had it not been for the Cumberland rising a year later, the Pilgrims aims would have been met unreservedly. To conclude, it would be unfair to say that all rebellions failed to achieve their principal aims yet the primary reason for their failure is the lack of unity between the commoners of England. The only rebellions that were successful were those that rebelled over national issues such as the Amicable Grant and Pilgrimage of Grace. Other factors such as poor leadership were influential in determining the outcome though not crucial. As the strength of the government, both militarily and symbolically was continuous throughout the period then, as there were successful rebellions, this factor cannot be seen to be as essential as unification over national grievances. Most rebellions failed yet when the counties were able to ally together against a common grievance the rebels stood a greater chance as fulfilling their principal aims.