How far were the rebellions in the years between 1485 and 1603 the result of social and economic discontent?
Between 1485 and 1603, England experienced unprecedented socio-economic upheaval. Throughout this period, England transitioned from a feudal to profit economy; establishing an early form of capitalism, more aptly described as mercantilism. Naturally, such change incurred discontent amongst the commons, often resulting in rebellion and revolt. Anthony Fletcher defines rebellions and revolts as distinct entities, citing Henry VII’s and Mary I’s assumption of the English throne as an example of revolt, whilst rebellions required a “demonstration at a local level seeking remedy and based on the ideas of justice”. Consequently, Fletcher highlights the disparity between high and low politics. Initially, an apparent distinction between rebellions would appear obvious, based upon the social status and concurrent aims of the rebellion’s participants. However, throughout the period, the Nobilitas Minor would experience an unparalleled increase in importance. Centralization of government and an increasingly secular society. R.H. Tawney emphasised that there’d been an overwhelming decrease in the old-fashioned, large-scale landowning aristocracy’s importance by the end of Elizabeth I’s reign in 1603, arguing that a new class of landowners, the gentry, had risen in both wealth and importance. Tawney’s theory would be taken up by Lawrence Stone, who’d then be criticised by Hugh Trevor-Roper for misinterpreting historical evidence. Trevor-Roper instead posited that there’d been a massive decline in ‘mere gentry’, due to price inflation. Whilst there were those amongst the Minor Nobilitas or gentry who experienced promotion, notably courtiers or merchants who’d become involved in monopolies, it didn’t occur at the expense of the Major Nobilitas or aristocracy; although they would become an almost wholly political class.
A distinct social class that developed throughout...