Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more convincing as an explanation of the nature of those involved in the Pilgrimage of Grace. (25 Marks)

The pilgrimage of grace is a greatly debated historical event, with its nature being unclear over whom and what conducted the rebellion. The historian Michael Bush describes the pilgrimage as a ‘rising of the commons’, a rebellion driven by the commoners, a similar theme seen since the peasant’s revolt of 1381. Bush also claims the purpose of the rebellion was for ‘both the faith of Christ and the commonwealth’ with members of the gentry, noblemen, and commoners all taking part with equal motivations for uniting. G R Elton however contradicts this view, his interpretation highlights that was ‘a planned uprising’ with some rather more deceitful motivations lead by the orchestrators who hid behind Robert Aske. These men are highlighted as being ‘Darcy, Constable and Hussey’. Elton provides the evidence of the production of badges of the 5 wounds of Christ provided ‘virtually at a moment’s notice’ as highlighted by Cromwell at the time. These two contradictory historical interpretations offer different insights into the pilgrimage itself, with Elton’s explanation offering more concrete evidence to describe his interpretation.
Bush’s historical interpretation relies upon the assumption that the pilgrimage of grace was orchestrated through popular demand. He highlights how the movement arose ‘in the interest of the commons’ with the suggestion being that the rebellion was a reactionary movement to the closing down of the multiple monasteries around the northern region, particular the spire in Louth, an initial rebellion lead by Captain Cobbler. Bush suggests that the armies were ‘moved by a concern for both the faith of Christ and the commonwealth’, thus implying that the motives behind the rebellion were to withhold the government’s power, who in Bush’s eyes had been ‘extortionate and heretical’. However Elton’s explanation for where the rebellion arose leads more to suggest it was in the Noblemen where there was most distaste for government. Elton suggests these men were ‘Darcy, Constable and Hussey’ three men in his opinion ‘really organised the rising’. The evidence provided by Elton is that the uprising itself took careful organisation and planning, with Robert Aske the front man of the rebellion coincidently ‘cross[ing] the river humber three days after the Lincolnshire rising had begun, that he should be taken by the rebels… that he should have returned to Lincolnshire rather than continued his alleged intention of making for London for the beginning of the law term’. This is supported by the historical context of Aske being the legal advisor to the Earle of Northumberland, a staunch historic catholic family, and Hussey and Darcy both condemning actions of Henry’s rule, with Hussey asking Charles V to ‘intervene in England’ and Darcy speaking in parliament against the divorce of Catherine of Aragon, suggesting that the rebellion itself was organised by these men.
The second point of debate highlighted when discussing the Pilgrimage of Grace is the motives behind the rebellion itself. As touched upon earlier, both Hussey and Darcy had ties to Catherine of Aragon the disgraced former queen, with Hussey’s wife being put in the tower of London to referring to Catherine’s daughter as Princess Mary, and Darcy publicly disowning Henry’s actions to divorce Catherine in Parliament. Elton supports this viewpoint highlighting these men as ‘ the remnant of the Aragonese party’ the coined term for the factions of nobles who supported the queen. This suggests that the motives of the rebellion were to re instate the former Queens daughter to royal ascension or at least establish the pope as head of the Church. This is supported by the demands listed by Aske and the pilgrimage which focused on the ending to the closing of the monasteries and the restabilising of the pope has head of the Church. The religious motives of the rebellion are supported by Bush’s interpretation also highlighting the ‘faith of Christ and the commonwealth’ of the people as being the main reasons for rebellion. Although Bush does acknowledge the gentry played the role in trying to ‘manipulate the people’ for their own agendas, he maintains that the people had a ‘strong drive of protest and range which rendered the uprising, in initiative and impetus’. Bush’s arguments are that although the higher statuses of these rebellions were driven by their own agendas, he maintains it was the drive of the peoples wills which lead the rebellion. This is supported by the manner in which Hussey, Aske and Darcy joined the rebellion. Darcy was overseeing Pontefract castle and was only ‘converted’ to the rebellion after a conversation with Aske, and similar for Hussey who initially refuses to betray the king by taking the oath of the rebellion. However, both Hussey and Darcy joined and moulded the rebellion; however it cannot be denied the initial movements came from the commoners.
The final area of historiographic dispute this essay will be analysing is the nature of the leadership of the rebellion itself. It is not debated that Robert Aske was the public figurehead of the rebellion, as indicated by the fact he was the man responsible for the demands and he was the man sent to Henry’s court in the Christmas of 1536, however whether or not ‘Darcy, Constable and Hussey’ are the main perpetrators of the rebellion is debated. Elton fiercely argues that the role of leadership was these three men, and uses the evidence of a ‘manifest advance planning’, which could only have been organised by members of the higher classes and gentlemen, not the commons as they did not have the resources to conduct this. The notion of the production of resources in determining leadership is also supported by Elton, where he highlights how ‘Cromwell also had a very good point when he asked Darcy how it had been possible to produce thousands of badges of the five wounds virtually at a moment’s notice’. Bush does not provide an answer on the issue of leadership, however he does highlight how all three gentlemen, clerics and commoners had the ‘ability to find common accord’. This is a suggestion that leadership of the rebellion was not dominated by one class, but instead a harmonious unification of three factions. It is evident that the commoners dominated the early beginnings of the rebellion, however from the evidence it is clear that the gentlemen and cleric’s gained control of the organisation of the rebellion, with the production of badges, the demands listed by Aske and the eventual executions of those of higher class held responsible by Henry.
An overall assessment of the two arguments laid within the opposing historiography concludes that it is evident to see Elton’s explanation of the nature of pilgrimage of grace as being a more convincing argument. Bush links the pilgrimage of grace to every peoples protest in England since 1381 and the peasant’s revolt. The generalisation of the rebellion does not do the pilgrimage justice of its complications and intricacies. Elton however offers an alternative opinion to the nature of the rebellion, and although the evidence he provides for the involvement in the rebellion may be slightly off contemporary opinion, especially in the case of the role of Darcy, the explanation and evidence he brings to light, in the formation of the 5 wounds of Christ badges, therefore lends him to being the more reliable and insightful historical explanation for the nature of those involved in the rebellion.