“Between 1547 and 1558 England was torn apart by religious revolution” Discuss

The orthodox view of the period between 1547 and 1588 is that during the reigns of “the little tudors” England endured a “mid Tudor crisis” overseen by a weak and sickly boy king followed by his violent half sister. Historians such as Bintdorf who espouse this view cite religion as a key cause for this crisis, suggesting it as a motivation for rebellion in both 1549 and in 1554. Edward’s Protestantism is portrayed as directly at odds with the beliefs of the people, and Mary’s repressive restoration of Catholicism as a rallying call to England’s Protestants. Aside from popular rebellion, they portray the workings of government as divided down religious lines, conservatives opposed Edward and Protestants opposed Mary. Yet this approach is clearly flawed, the revisionist view of Loades and Loach counters this picture of decline with evidence of strong government, economic success and sensible religious policy. This notion “religious revolution” and its divisive nature centers around the popular reaction to the attempts of both regimes to establish their own brand of state religion. However, under both regimes the opposition from religious radicals was effectively neutralised. For example the imprisoned Stephen Gardiner accepted the 1549 prayer book given its ambiguous teaching on the real presence during the Eucharist. This indicates a concerted attempt by the regime to introduce change slowly to minimise opposition rather than blundering into a heavy handed approach, sure to provoke hostility if implemented too quickly. Rather incremental changes such as the publication of Cranmer’s book of homilies, the issuing of injunctions to the clergy and the rise in public preaching all suggest a concerted effort to gradually transmogrify the religious sentiment of the average Englishman via assimilation. The evidence of success in this approach is marked by the lack of an significant catholic rebellion against Edward. When we then cut to the reverse process in the brief attempt at restoration, the Marian policy of burnings is used by historians such as Pollard and Jones to indicate the repressive nature of her regime and as a reason for her continued unpopularity. Yet the executions were largely centred on the southeast , with 1/5th in London alone and none at all in northern areas such as Durham. The notion of popular opposition to the burnings is far more the product of the success of Foxe’s “Acts and Monuments” than any real discontent. What we have evidence for then is a geographically variegated approach aimed at stamping out hot spots of Protestant radicalism, not the wanton violence expressed by Protestant propaganda and sustained via the tradition of Whig historiography.