Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:09:34.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and The Peasants Revolt of 1549

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Extract

Most of the details about the life of Henry Fitzalan, fourteenth Earl of Arundel, come from a biography written in 1580, which was the year of his death, by a close associate, probably his private chaplain, who had clearly been an eyewitness to most of the events described. The latter wrote the essay for the benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses, “for the perpetual memory of a personage very honorable, and that ye who shall remain of his blood may the rather rejoice in so noble a progenitor.” Since this was his purpose, there can be little doubt that the author has a tendency to stress the virtues and successes of his subject, and to gloss over his defects and omit his failures. What is recorded, however, carries the ring of truth, and the selectivity of the presentation throws light on the values and actions which the author considered important and praiseworthy.

The Earl of Arundel was no ordinary nobleman. He was the representative of the most senior and one of the richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the country. He was a man who inherited vast estates and equally vast authority in his native Sussex, and who lived in a style appropriate to his position. Unlike the more modern-minded nobles, he does not seem to have been much affected by the educational reforms of the Renaissance. When on embassies abroad, he certainly confined himself to speaking English, and it seems possible that he lacked the skill to do anything else.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The original is BM, Royal MSS., 17. A. IX. It was printed by Nichols, J. G. in Gentlemen's Magazine, CIII, part 2 (1833), 11-15, 118-24, 490–91Google Scholar, 209-15. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. For the dating of the document, see Tierney, M. A., History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel (London, 1834), I, 319Google Scholar, note b.

2. H.M.C., 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42. Jordan, W. K., Edward VI, The Young King (London, 1968), pp. 438–53Google Scholar.

3. There is one independent piece of corroborative evidence that the Sussex peasantry were quieted without bloodshed. A contemporary witness described “a general plague of rebelling: Kent, Essex and Sussex and all the parts near London have meekly confessed their folly and pray for the King's most gracious pardon.” (H.M.C. 12th Report, App. IV, p. 42.)