3. Why did more dynastic rebellions happen in some periods of the Tudor period than others? The last decade of Henry VIII’s reign had not seen a further outbreak of major rebellion. In part this was because of the strong punishments that had taken place against the Pilgrimage of Grace and it was also because Henry retreated from further attacks on the church. The issue of royal succession dominated politics in the 1550s. As Edwards VI’s health deteriorated, it looked increasingly likely that his Catholic sister, Mary, would soon be inheriting the throne. For those who had worked hard to encourage Protestantism, including Edward himself, this was a bitter prospect. The rebellions in 1549 (Kett Rebellion) had shaken confidence in the Tudor regime and the prospect of a Catholic monarch after a child-king did not do much to restore faith that there would be a stable government in future. Therefore, rebellion was inevitable.
4. Despite making very controversial changes to the structure and beliefs of the church, Elizabeth faced only one serious rebellion in her 40 or so years as queens. It was only at the very end of her reign when disastrous economic conditions provoked localised rioting that the prospect of the rebellion resurfaced, but even then it never really troubled the government. The unrest in 1549, which contained a noticeable element of criticism of the wealthy, might have shocked nobility and gentry into greater loyalty to the crown. While they had been prepared to dabble in rebellion in the first half of the century, the possibility that they could lose control and protest turned directly against them was a sobering thought. Finally, the government had become more prepared against protest. The expansion of treason laws gave greater powers to nip problems in the bud and Elizabethan governments showed a steely determination to punish disobedience.
5. Overall which were the more serious and why, which were the less serious and why.
