Early Modern Power and Polemic

G. W. Bernard. Power and Politics in Tudor England. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2000. 240 pp. $59.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-7546-0245-3. Reviewed by Barrett Beer Published on H-Albion (July, 2001) Early Modern Power and Polemic expression of power, defined quite straightfor‐ Without apology to the new history in any of wardly as the ability to take and to enforce deci‐ its forms and formulations, this fascinating collec‐ sions" (p. 1). In contrast to Elton, he argues that tion of essays focuses on high politics and the ex‐ the English nobility remained powerful politically, ercise of power as its title clearly suggests. Closely socially, economically, and ideologically through‐ inter-related themes include the Tudor monarchy, out the sixteenth century. Bernard vehemently re‐ leadership at the highest level, the role of the no‐ jects Ives's emphasis on factionalism and scorns a bility, political conflict, the monarchical character group of hedgers whom he labels as "it all de‐ of the Church of England, and domestic architec‐ pends" historians (p. 6). Although not mentioned ture. Bernard's interests in Thomas Wolsey, in the title of any of the essays, Henry VIII quickly Thomas Cromwell, Anne Boleyn, and relation‐ emerges as the dominant fgure not only in the ships between the crown and council lie at the book but throughout the Tudor century. The other heart of a major part of the Tudor research agen‐ essential element in Bernard's equation of Tudor da of the past ffty years. The essays not only ex‐ politics is the nobility. The Pilgrimage of Grace, plore power and politics but also have a distinct here portrayed as a protest against Henry's reli‐ polemical tone with sharp attacks on the scholar‐ gious policies, was halted at Doncaster through ship of G.R. Elton, Eric Ives, Retha Warnicke, the efforts of George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury Nicholas Tyacke, as well as the entire postmod‐ who raised over 3600 men within a week. During ernist movement. The book draws heavily on the reign of Edward VI, Edward Seymour, Duke of Bernard's previous publications and consists of an Somerset and John Dudley, Duke of Northumber‐ introduction and ten essays of which four are land are designated as courtier- and administra‐ published for the first time. tor-magnates who were successfully thwarted in 1549 and 1553 respectively by a non-factional "At the heart of the essays in this volume," coalition of provincial nobility and gentry. Bernard writes, "lies an interest in the nature and Throughout the century loyal nobles acted on be‐ H-Net Reviews half of the Crown in the regions where they held by the laity), Bernard postulates a monarchical land and formed a community of interest that sus‐ reformation, a view that is a direct descendant of tained a partnership between the Crown and the old dictum that the English Reformation was landed classes. an act of state. He fnds little evidence of an Descent from positions of power or influence Arminian plot in the 1620s and denies that are themes that appear in fve different essays, if William Laud was an Arminian who tried to cre‐ Amy Robsart's fall down a stairs is included. In a ate a like-minded clergy. reconsideration of the fall of Wolsey, Bernard re‐ While Bernard's major conclusions are clear‐ jects arguments of Ives that a faction led by ly presented, his detailed arguments are often Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk was responsible complicated and a challenge to follow especially for the cardinal's demise in 1529 and demon‐ as one must digest ill-organized page-long para‐ strates that responsibility in fact lay with Henry graphs (pp. 58-60, 140, 143). He does not fully ap‐ VIII. The king was also primarily responsible for preciate that he has engaged in a debate that the fall of Anne Boleyn, but Bernard insists that reaches back at least to the early twentieth centu‐ he was no monster who acted irrationally. ry when A. F. Pollard explored many of the same Bernard contends that there is "the likelihood that issues and consequently neglects to consider the Anne and at least some of her friends were guilty broader historiographical context within which of the charges brought against them" (p. 98) even his work is located. To this reviewer many of if the motivation for her actions remains ambigu‐ Bernard's issues have a familiar, if dated ring ous. Descent for Thomas Cromwell is more broad‐ since they were regular fare among graduate stu‐ ly conceived as the author rejects not only Elton's dents at Northwestern forty years ago and treated interpretation of Cromwell's political demise in at great length by Lacey Smith in Henry VIII: The 1540 but also the larger part of Cromwell's stand‐ Mask of Royalty (1971) and other works. While ing as a major historical fgure. After Wolsey, Bernard rejects the relativity of postmodern Queen Anne, and Cromwell, Thomas Seymour is scholarship in favor of a laudable quest for objec‐ definitely smaller fry, because he was a rash tive truth, his own negative assessments of the politician lacking any trace of judgment who work of able historians such as Elton, Warnicke, threatened his brother, Protector Somerset, and Tyacke--none of whom are remotely identified other councillors. Amy Robsart, wife of Robert with postmodernism--suggest that a critical evalu‐ Dudley, Earl of Leicester, never exercised real po‐ ation of sources can lead to widely varying con‐ litical power, but her death in 1560 affected her clusions rather than to the certainty that he val‐ husband's influence at court. Bernard reviews a ues so highly. Indeed his own methodology re‐ wide range of evidence and concludes that while veals a few cracks when he accepts the authority it would be difficult to convict Dudley in a court of of the Spanish chronicler of the reign of Henry law, a "good case can be made for saying that he VIII, draws on French poetry, and credits the au‐ intended to murder his wife and very likely did" thority of an anonymous historian to sustain his (p. 172). arguments. Whether it is policy-making during Bernard's essay on the Reformation is painted the reign of Henry VIII or the Reformation under on a larger canvas as he examines the period Elizabeth, James I, or Charles I, Bernard's read‐ from 1529 to 1642 and inflicts further damage to ings of the sources conveniently confirm his view the already shaky thesis of Tyacke. Whereas histo‐ that the monarchy was always dominant and that rians often associate the changes of the Reforma‐ ministers, queens, and churchmen followed the tion with the clergy (either supported or opposed king's lead. 2 H-Net Reviews If we assume that one of Bernard's objectives was to stir the waters of historical debate, it may be concluded that he has succeeded magnificent‐ ly. His provocative essays refocus scholarly atten‐ tion on important questions that are not less sig‐ nificant because they are old and draw attention to weaknesses embodied in the new history as well as scholarship that operates under a variety of other labels. Copyright 2001 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at [email protected]. If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-albion Citation: Barrett Beer. Review of Bernard, G. W. Power and Politics in Tudor England. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. July, 2001. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=5283 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 3.

Load more