‘Northumberland was a more e ec ve leader than Somerset because he had learnt from
his predecessor’s mistakes’. Assess the validity of this view
This essay must be broken down into fundamental ques ons. Firstly, was Northumberland a
more e ec ve leader than Somerset, and secondly, was this because he had learnt from
Somerset’s mistakes? This essay will approach the e ec veness of leadership considering
three main factors: foreign policy, court poli cs, socio-economic policy and religious
doctrine. While some historians portray Somerset as the ‘Bad Duke’ and Northumberland as
the ‘Good Duke’ who appealed to the majority of the na on with more moderate policies,
both leaders ruled over a ‘Mid-Tudor crisis’ that was characterised by inconsistence,
instability and severe socio-economic issues that neither succeeded in solving in the long-
term.
Indeed, the revisionist view of Edward’s reign agrees that Northumberland was a more
e ec ve leader than Somerset because he had learnt from his predecessor’s mistakes.
Firstly, Somerset’s approach to managing court poli cs proved to be massively unpopular
and o en ine ec ve. Somerset subverted the terms of Henry VIII’s will that outlined that
the 16 executors of Edward’s Regency Council were to govern the country collec vely, by
delaying this announcement, and securing support by promising executors tles,
commissions and lands to make himself Lord Protector in 1547. Although this ini ally
required him to lead the Regency Council with the executors’ consent, a patent in 1547
widened his remit and allowed him to act alone as ‘quasi-king’. His autocra c rule for the
next two years was evident in his use of Proclama ons without consul ng neither Edward
nor the Regency Council (he issued more than 77, in comparison to an average of six a year
under Henry VIII). Furthermore, he was o en not present in Privy Council mee ngs as his
signature was added to documents later. Dale Hoak writes that his ‘near-abandonment’
brough the government ‘close to ruin’. His refusal to delegate authority to others, as
exempli ed by his frequent rejec on of the Regency Council’s advice, also added to his
autocra c style of leadership. The pping point that led to his downfall was his kidnapping
of Edward VI in Windsor Castle in an a empt to remain in power, which culminated the
simmering opposi on and anger against him from both the regency council and the King
into a coup led by John Dudley in 1549. In comparison, Dudley adopted a more friendly
a tude towards the Privy Council; he restored the Council as the principal instrument of
government by enlarging the membership of the Council to 33 members and trus ng
ministers to take decisions in his absence. He increased the e ciency of the Council by
crea ng a smaller, inner commi ee with a xed rou ne to conduct business. Another sign of
his perhaps more ‘democra c’ leadership was his releasing of poli cal rivals such as
Somerset, Cecil and Paget, whom he recognised were competent and able men that were
valuable in government. He recognised the dangers of Somerset’s autocra c rule and
instead delegated authority to many ministers, as shown in his appointment of Cecil and
Gresham to stabilise the currency and tackle nancial issues. His delega on can be further
exempli ed in allowing Lord Russell in 1550 to nego ate a peace treaty with France. He also
limited the use of proclama ons and instead issued more pieces of legisla on that had been
discussed with the Privy Council to di eren ate himself from Somerset who ‘neglected the
Privy Council and used it as no more than a rubber stump for his policies’-Elton. Another
his predecessor’s mistakes’. Assess the validity of this view
This essay must be broken down into fundamental ques ons. Firstly, was Northumberland a
more e ec ve leader than Somerset, and secondly, was this because he had learnt from
Somerset’s mistakes? This essay will approach the e ec veness of leadership considering
three main factors: foreign policy, court poli cs, socio-economic policy and religious
doctrine. While some historians portray Somerset as the ‘Bad Duke’ and Northumberland as
the ‘Good Duke’ who appealed to the majority of the na on with more moderate policies,
both leaders ruled over a ‘Mid-Tudor crisis’ that was characterised by inconsistence,
instability and severe socio-economic issues that neither succeeded in solving in the long-
term.
Indeed, the revisionist view of Edward’s reign agrees that Northumberland was a more
e ec ve leader than Somerset because he had learnt from his predecessor’s mistakes.
Firstly, Somerset’s approach to managing court poli cs proved to be massively unpopular
and o en ine ec ve. Somerset subverted the terms of Henry VIII’s will that outlined that
the 16 executors of Edward’s Regency Council were to govern the country collec vely, by
delaying this announcement, and securing support by promising executors tles,
commissions and lands to make himself Lord Protector in 1547. Although this ini ally
required him to lead the Regency Council with the executors’ consent, a patent in 1547
widened his remit and allowed him to act alone as ‘quasi-king’. His autocra c rule for the
next two years was evident in his use of Proclama ons without consul ng neither Edward
nor the Regency Council (he issued more than 77, in comparison to an average of six a year
under Henry VIII). Furthermore, he was o en not present in Privy Council mee ngs as his
signature was added to documents later. Dale Hoak writes that his ‘near-abandonment’
brough the government ‘close to ruin’. His refusal to delegate authority to others, as
exempli ed by his frequent rejec on of the Regency Council’s advice, also added to his
autocra c style of leadership. The pping point that led to his downfall was his kidnapping
of Edward VI in Windsor Castle in an a empt to remain in power, which culminated the
simmering opposi on and anger against him from both the regency council and the King
into a coup led by John Dudley in 1549. In comparison, Dudley adopted a more friendly
a tude towards the Privy Council; he restored the Council as the principal instrument of
government by enlarging the membership of the Council to 33 members and trus ng
ministers to take decisions in his absence. He increased the e ciency of the Council by
crea ng a smaller, inner commi ee with a xed rou ne to conduct business. Another sign of
his perhaps more ‘democra c’ leadership was his releasing of poli cal rivals such as
Somerset, Cecil and Paget, whom he recognised were competent and able men that were
valuable in government. He recognised the dangers of Somerset’s autocra c rule and
instead delegated authority to many ministers, as shown in his appointment of Cecil and
Gresham to stabilise the currency and tackle nancial issues. His delega on can be further
exempli ed in allowing Lord Russell in 1550 to nego ate a peace treaty with France. He also
limited the use of proclama ons and instead issued more pieces of legisla on that had been
discussed with the Privy Council to di eren ate himself from Somerset who ‘neglected the
Privy Council and used it as no more than a rubber stump for his policies’-Elton. Another
