Wyatt's Rebellion: A Threat To Tudor Governance

Wyatt’s rebellion posed a threat to Tudor governance but it was not aimed at deposing Mary and thus posed Mary’s hold on the throne less of a threat. Richards suggests that Wyatt 's rebellion posed a serious threat to Mary. She argues that by virtue of the numbers involved, Wyatt was set to march on and challenge London, the hub of Tudor power. However, Guy has a different view. He points out that Wyatt was isolated with the other uprisings failing to materialise and also was stopped by the Londoners. Fletcher and MacCulloch put forward the view that by virtue of its location and proximity to London, it was a serious threat. The rebellion got all the way to the gates of London and this shows how much of a threat it was.
Fletcher’s primary assertion is that the rebellion was dangerous due to it having started in Kent. Kent was a vital county. The vast majority of trade and other imports came through Kent from the continent. This made Kent a vital link with the continent. This importance was recognised by the Tudors and Kentish lands had traditionally been given to loyal crown servants. However, these close ties with Europe meant that Kent was a fairly progressive country in terms of religion. It was …show more content…
The populace heard rumours and stories about the supposed sacking and pillaging of villages on the road to London by the rebels. This meant that when Wyatt came to London, he found the gates shut. This effectively halted the rebellion. As more time passed with the rebels not being able to get into the city, Wyatt’s men drifted away and dissipated. The fear of sacking was not the only reason for the gates being shut. It also shows that the Londoners were prepared to come out in support of Mary which greatly enhanced her position. Therefore, the inability of the rebels to gain access to the city shows us that the rebellion was not that serious a threat to