‘Political faction was the most important cause of rebellion in the Tudor period.’ How far do you agree? 
Political factions throughout the Tudor period seem to be a consistent cause of rebellion. Political factions in Tudor times were individuals or groups who were trying to gain favour of the monarch and rise into the Royal Court and from there into the Privy Council - the advisers to & favourites of the Monarch. The closer you were to the monarch, the more power & money/land you would gain from the monarch and the more you could influence law & policy. There were several rebellions that were caused by political factions in England, such as Simnel, Northumberland, and the Northern ...view middle of the document...
His supporters also had political motives; Charles VIII of France, who wanted to stop Henry VII supporting Brittany, which he was trying to take over, Margaret of Burgundy (the sister of the Yorkist Edward IV) and by James IV of Scotland who realised that his presence gave him international leverage. These rebellions were important not only because they happened at a time when the Tudor Dynasty was fragile (as Henry was a usurper and his claim was weak), but because as one of the princes in the tower, they had a better claim to the throne than Henry did, and that the imposters had even been recognised as King in some places: Lambert Simnel was recognised by the Irish who actually crowned him King in May 1487, and Perkin Warbeck, who was formally recognised as the Duke of York by Margaret of Burgundy and King Maximilian I, the Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Netherlands.
Another rebellion that was factionally motivated was the Northern Earls in XXXX. Although the main aim of the revolt was to remove Elizabeth from the throne and replace her with Mary, another objective was to remove royal councillors, most notably William Cecil, the queen’s secretary, who they considered to be too influential in court, and also held him responsible for the problems surrounding religious and foreign policy. As well as this, Northumberland’s rival, Sir John Forster, had been in favour of the queen, and Northumberland had many grievances against Elizabeth; she had dropped him as Lieutenant of the North, and took away his Wardenship. The Earls demanded a return of political power to the North- a Northern parliament and a reformed Council of the North in York.
The Essex rebellion in 1601 was obviously factionally motivated. The Earl of Essex, having been Elizabeth’s favourite courtier, fell out of favour in preference to Robert Cecil, who Essex resented because of his influence he had at court. The revolt by Essex was a (unsuccessful) attempt to restore his power and influence.
Factional rebellions were not only present in England, but in Ireland as well. The Kildare rebellion of XXXX was caused by political factions: ‘Silken’ Thomas began a revolt having heard of the arrest and imprisonment of his father, the Earl of Kildare, in the Tower of London. The uprising was primarily political in cause and intent. Thomas’s objectives were to expel the English administration and become sole ruler of Ireland.
Wyatt’s rebellion of 1554 was also factionally motivated. In this case, he resented the ever-increasing influence and power of Spanish councillors at court, who, he believed, would attempt to use their power further once Philip of Spain was married to Mary. This is reinforced by the fact that Philip used anti-Spanish propaganda to gain support for his cause- he stated that the Spanish would impose tax burdens and rag England into Spanish foreign conquests; therefore, Wyatt’s rebellion was launched against Mary and her advisors at court who seems to...