Perceived fears of Elizabeths policy to weaken the position of the nobility sparked the rising in the north. This rising was guided by two individuals, the Earl of northeasternumberland and the Earl of Westmoreland, who themselves mat flagellumen by Elizabeths encroachment upon their ancient nobility, that of land and lineage. There was a feeling among them that the kings displeasure towards him [Norfolk] and separates of the nobility, as confirmed by Francis Norton would be some great stir, which caused us to confer together (Fletcher & MacCulloch 105). Their ire increased with the summons by Elizabeth. Disregarding her summons, they struck generate forward against her Protestant government assaulting ghostly imagery and church furniture (Fletcher & MacCulloch 105). Northumberland mat the riot was an try on the sensitive comprise religion and heresie, being instituted by Elizabeth (Fletcher & MacCulloch 108). However this was not the case, as will b e shown later in my response. The primary election causes merchantman the scenes of this lawlessness centered upon Norfolks planned espousals to bloody shame, Queen of Scots. It was with this wedding party, that hopes of those associated with the hailroom would be fulfilled. A faction of Norfolk supporters was growing deep down the court because of Elizabeths lack of concern for her succession. This faction was made up of Arundel, Pembroke, and Lumley. The marriage of bloody shame and Norfolk was their hope to eliminate their fears. They aphorism in this marriage an elimination of the succession trouble, unless also securing the interest of the nobility. other important individual to add to the puzzle was Leicester. He hoped upon her marriage, bloody shame would pledge herself Protestant. It is highly questionable if Mary would have given up over up her Catholic faith just to appease a few nobles. Leicester also cut the marriage well from the unknown policy perspective. It would be possible to retur! n to favor with Spain and father negotiations with France, securing peace among the European powers. But this was hoping for too much. Mary was a tool that could be used by Spain to round off the heretic Queen and her subjects. The rebellion was claimed to be based upon religious concerns, as had been stated earlier. Elizabeth religious settlement was attempting to induce or support any form of conformity, however sh either(a)ow (Fletcher & MacCulloch 108). This is evident when flavour at the percentage of JPs whom were Catholic, two-thirds. This represents a very large number, considering the Earls argued of Protestant infringement. The JPs were the representatives of the court instituting laws among her subjects. It is highly unlikely that they were basing their decisions on Protestant beliefs. The line of battle to the north, however, were very conservative in their thinking. They refused to change their old ways, which were a set of ingrained observances w hich defined and gave meaning, to their daily lives (Fletcher & MacCulloch 109). Those commoners who joined the rebellion did so because of long lasting memories of Protestant iconoclasm. The supporters of Norfolk and his marriage felt Cecils foreign policy shift was detrimental to the future of England. A disintegration took place among the aristocratic and semi-Catholic section of the court because of this shift. Cecils deification of Phillip IIs bullion ships was a bold step for England to take. This move by Cecil broke an established peace with England and Spain. These individuals had fears of a potential resistivity with Catholic powers ((Fletcher & MacCulloch 95).
England was in no position to face an all out war with the likes of Spain, especially if they formed an alliance with France. The bother of succession would not be an issue any longer, fragmentize would be. It is for this reason they felt it was time for Cecil to be removed and payoff their support for Norfolks marriage. The Northern Rebellion posed no cuss to Elizabeth in any way. It was more of a nuisance, which she had to divert worthy resources to take care of this problem. What the supporters failed to realize was Elizabeths strength as a ruler. Upon hearing of the planned marriage, she angrily rejected the proposal. Fearing retribution, Leicester confessed of the plans behind the marriage. Elizabeth saw that it was a threat to her reign, as well as an bam upon her decision-making. Her refusal to support the marriage broke apart what support in that location was in the Court. Thus, the two Earls in the North were solo in their fight against t he Elizabethan government. The rebellion in the North lacked a very important element, leadinghip. The two Earls were not leaders but more along the lines of active participants. Additionally, they lacked the support they impression they could garner. I think the people realized there was no threat from Elizabeth upon their religious practices. In the end, Elizabeth would make an example of those who participated and back up the rebellion. Again, Elizabeths iciness won this chess match, if you can consider it that. Fletcher, Anthony. & MacCulloch, Diarmaid., Tudor Rebellions, (New York, 1997) If you necessitate to get a full essay, order it on our website:
BestEssayCheap.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
cheap essay
