1. Sotherton, pp. 91–3.
2. Jones, pp. 163–4.
The Coming of Warwick’s Army
1. Miller, G. J., Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries 1485–1547 (1980), esp. p. 44.
2. Jary, L. R., Part 2, ‘Destruction of the North Wall Gates’, has a very useful discussion of this.
3. Sotherton, p. 95.
4. Carter, A., ‘The Site of Dussindale’, Norfolk Archaeology Vol. XXXIX, Part 1 (1984), pp. 54–62.
5. Sotherton, p. 98.
6. Jary, L. R., Part 4.
7. Neville, p. 70.
The Final Battles: 24–27 August
1. Description of events between 24 and 26 August is based on Sotherton, pp. 92–7.
2. Somerset to Hoby, 15.9.1549, quoted in Russell, p. 214.
3. Jary, L. R., Part 3, on which my discussion of the Battle of Dussindale is largely based.
4. Neville, p. 71.
5. Sotherton, p. 98.
6. Russell, p. 144, referencing journal of Edward VI.
7. Neville, pp. 71–2.
8. Sotherton, p. 99.
9. Neville, pp. 73–4.
The Aftermath
1. Neville, p. 76.
2. Holinshed Shared texts, Vol. IV, p. 1613, 69.
3. Neville, pp. 75–6.
4. Whittle, Part V.
5. Land, p. 126.
6. This account based on Loach, J., Edward VI (1999), pp. 105–6.
7. Skidmore, p. 152.
8. Wood (2007), p. 77.
9. Ibid., p. 78.
10. Ibid., chapter 5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Until comparatively recently, little was written about the rebellions of 1549 as a whole or about the Western Rebellion; there has been more on Kett’s Rebellion, but not that much.
As Diarmaid MacCulloch has said, much of what was written about Kett’s Rebellion before the 1970s was derived from the only contemporary narrative, The Commoysion in Norfolk by Nicholas Sotherton. Written in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, it is very short, and viscerally opposed to the rebels.
The next narrative to appear was Alexander Neville’s Norfolk Furies (1575), translated from the Latin by Richard Woods in 1615. Neville was secretary to Archbishop Matthew Parker, who briefly visited the camp in 1549. Neville’s opposition to the rebels is ferocious, but a lot of useful information can be garnered from his longer account. Holinshed’s Chronicle (1577) discusses the rebellion but adds little to Neville.
Almost two hundred years passed before the next discussion of the rebellion, in Francis Blomefield’s An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk (1739–75). Again, it adds little.
Almost another century passed until the first ‘stand-alone’ history, F. W. Russell’s Kett’s Rebellion in Norfolk, was published in 1859. It is a first-rate work of scholarship, incorporating many new sources unearthed by Russell, though not very readable now. Russell was the first writer to show at least a little sympathy for the rebels.
In the first half of the twentieth century two writers brought a socialist perspective to the rebellion. Joseph Clayton’s Robert Kett and the Norfolk Rising (1912) effectively takes the existing story and turns it on its head, the rebels being good and the landlords bad. It is the first book that is written to be accessible to the general reader. Short, but thoroughly researched and with useful insights, is R. Groves’ Rebels’ Oak (1947).
There is then another gap until 1977, when S. K. Land wrote Kett’s Rebellion: The Norfolk Rising of 1549. This is a useful introductory book, though dated now given subsequent study, and aims at impartiality. All these books portray Kett’s Rebellion as an independent entity – though other south-eastern camps are mentioned, it is only incidentally.
In the same year came J. Cornwall’s Revolt of the Peasantry, written by an academic but very readable. Paradoxically, this first modern book to discuss the 1549 risings as a whole also portrayed the Western Rebellion and Kett’s Rebellion as separate entities, with the ‘commotions’ in between as incidental.
In more recent years several academic writers have added greatly to our knowledge. Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘Kett’s Rebellion in Context’ (Past & Present 84, 1979) was the first study to put Kett’s Rebellion in the context of the other risings. Andy Wood’s Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (2002) and The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England (2007) are interesting and thought-provoking. Amanda Jones’s ‘Commotion Time’: The English Risings of 1549 (University of Warwick PhD, 2003) has greatly deepened our understanding of the rebellions’ connectedness. Ethan Shagan’s Popular Politics and the English Reformation (2003) also contains useful information. A. Greenwood’s A Study of the Rebel Petitions of 1549 (University of Manchester PhD, 1990) is an excellent study of the Mousehold petition, and also casts light on rebel leadership and membership of the Mousehold Camp, as does Jane Whittle’s ‘Lords and Tenants in Kett’s Rebellion 1549’ (Past & Present 207, May 2010).
These works have all greatly deepened our understanding of the 1549 rebellions and their consequences, but are aimed, necessarily, mainly at an academic audience. However, the flame of thoroughly researched but highly accessible work on the Rebellion has been kept alive by Adrian Hoare, working with his wife Anne; notably An Unlikely Rebeclass="underline" Robert Kett and the Norfolk Rising, 1549 (1999) and On the Trail of Kett’s Rebellion in Norfolk 1549: Places, People and Events (2016). Leo R. Jary’s Rewriting the Rebellion (2018) adds greatly to our understanding of the military side.
Other books I found particularly useful were Barrett Beer’s Rebellion and Riot: Popular Disorder in England During the Reign of Edward VI (2005); M. L. Bush’s The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (1975); and Marcus Merriman’s The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542–1551 (2000) – I think the outstanding work on England’s wars against Scotland in this period. One book that was of special help to me in recreating the trial of the fictional Thomas Boleyn was J. S. Cockburn’s A History of English Assizes 1558–1714 (1972).
I hope that Tombland, which is fiction but based on primary and secondary sources, may help carry the story of Kett’s Rebellion and the 1549 rebellions as a whole to a wider audience.