Rising in the North, The [Child 175]

DESCRIPTION: The Earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland, suspected of treason, go into rebellion, bringing in others such as Master Norton. They gather their forces, but are delayed in besieging a castle. Loyal forces defeat the rebels
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1750 (Percy folio)
KEYWORDS: nobility rebellion
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1558-1603 - Reign of Elizabeth I
Nov 14, 1569 - Beginning of the northern rebellion
FOUND IN: Britain
REFERENCES (7 citations):
Child 175, "The Rising in the North" (1 text)
Hales/Furnival-BishopPercysFolioManuscript, volume II, pp. 210-216, "Risinge in the Northe" (1 text)
Percy/Wheatley-ReliquesOfAncientEnglishPoetry I, pp. 266-278, "The Rising in the North" (2 texts, one being that in the Reliques and the other being the manuscript copy)
Leach-TheBalladBook, pp. 484-488, "The Rising in the North" (1 text)
Sidgwick-BalladsPoemsIllustratingEnglishHistory, pp. 97-103, "The Rising in the North" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: [Cuthbert Sharp], _The Bishopric Garland, A Collection of Legends, Songs, Ballads, &c Belonging to the County of Durham_, 1834 (references are to the 1969 reprint), p. 6, "The Rising of the North" (1 text, from Percy)
MANUSCRIPT: {MSPercyFolio}, The Percy Folio, London, British Library, MS. Additional 27879, page 256
Roud #4005
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Northumberland Betrayed by Douglas" [Child 176] (subject)
cf. "The Earl of Westmoreland" [Child 177] (subject)
cf. "Rookhope Ryde" [Child 179] (context)
NOTES [5322 words]: According to Fowler, p. 158 n. 25, this is one of eighteen ballads in the Child collection found only in the Percy Folio.
The political situation in England in 1569 was, one might say, metastable: Elizabeth I had been on the throne for eleven years, and most of the population supported her, and southern England for the most part was safely Protestant. But Elizabeth turned 36 that year, and showed no signs of planning to marry and bear an heir, and the two leading candidates to succeed her, Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots and Margaret Douglas, were both Catholic. (For more background than you probably want on that, and on Mary's marriage to Margaret's son Lord Darnley, see the notes to "Mary Hamilton" [Child 173]).
And, in 1567, Mary Stewart -- who had already been overthrown and replaced by her son James VI -- fled to England. Where no one knew what to do with her. In time, she would be taken south, and eventually executed, but at first she was kept at Carlisle. Where she was visited by, among others, Henry Percy, the seventh Earl of Northumberland (McCulloch/Fletcher, p. 105).
Meanwhile, relations between England and Spain had been breaking down; the Spanish had thrown out the English ambassador, and Spain's ambassador to Engliand disliked and insulted the English, to no good purpose on either side (Neale, p. 182). English ships had been seizing Spanish treasure ships carrying money to the Netherlands, provoking sea fights between the two nations (Neale, p. 176). The Armada would not sail for many more years, but Spain was already open to interfering in English affairs. As it turned out, Spain didn't really play any role in the Rising (Neale, pp. 184-185 -- after all, they weren't fond of the pro-French Mary Stewart), but Mary's allies thought they might.
Even though the Earls of Westmorland and Northumberland are the main characters of the ballad, the matter really started with Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk, whose power base was in East Anglia.
Norfolk had a distinguished ancestry; his great-grandfather the Second Earl had won the Battle of Flodden in 1513 and his grandfather the Third Duke had led the army that won at Solway Moss a generation later. They were loyalists, and Britain's foremost soldiers (Williams, p. 8). Fat lot of good it did them; the Fourth Duke's father, Henry Howard Earl of Surrey (a poet whose works are still sometimes quoted today) had been executed for technical treason by Henry VIII in 1547, and an order to execute the Third Duke had been given Henry VIII's approval when that monarch died, letting the Third Duke live (Wagner, p. 338; Williams, pp. 7-10, 18-20). The government however looted much of the Howard Family property (Williams, p. 22). It was only when Mary Tudor became queen in 1553 that they were rehabilitated (Williams, p. 28) -- ironic, given that Anne Boleyn had been a Howard on her mother's side. At that time, Thomas Howard was granted the Earldom of Surrey that his father had lost to attainder before his execution, though not all his properties were restored (Williams,pp. 28-29). He had had a truly strange education, being tutored by the extreme Protestant John Foxe (author of the Book of Martyrs) before being turned over to Catholic teachers in Mary's reign (Williams, pp. 25-30). He gained the Norfolk dukedom in 1554 when his grandfather died, and when Elizabeth was crowned, as the nation's senior peer, he played a great role; she made him a member of the Order of the Garter in return (Williams, p. 40). At first he was a positive force in politics, strengthening, e.g., the college of heralds so that they preserved much historical information that has proved to be useful (Williams, pp. 41-43).
Based on tax collections, he was the third-richest peer in England (Williams, p. 50), and was considered the largest landowner (Williams, p. 104), and he took to traveling with a very large retinue, seemingly to gain attention and boast of his power. But his debts were also large, and put his holdings in some danger (Williams, pp. 110-111, although the way Williams describes it makes it sound more as if he was heavily leveraged than insolvent).
He had actually held a command against Scotland in the period after Mary's deposition, though he did not want it (Williams, pp. 53-55). And at one time, after his second wife had died, Elizabeth herself (in 1565) had proposed him as a possible husband for the Scottish queen (Williams, p. 90). In 1569, with Howard a widower for the third time, and Mary suspected of having murdered her husband, Elizabeth had a different view....
The Percies of Northumberland and the Nevilles of Westmoreland were the great lords of the English north; on those rare occasions they agreed on anything, they could usually take most of the northern counties with them. But although the local people were strongly loyal to them, the Tudors were depriving them of their powers, and doing so in such a way that it also apparently affected their finances (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 114).
The Percies had been lords for centuries; Henry Percy, the First Earl of Northumberland, was given his earldom in 1377 (Lomas, p. 54). But their record of loyalty was pretty dubious (Lomas, p. 56, comments with fair accuracy that "the Percy family contrived always to be on the wrong side politically"), and Thomas Percy the seventh earl wasn't even the son of the sixth earl; rather, Henry Percy the sixth earl had been an odd, ineffective man (Lomas, p. 174, calls him a "pathetic and rather tragic figure) who had been involved, somehow, with Anne Boleyn before Henry VIII noticed her, and when Henry took Anne, Percy had been forced into a failed, childless marriage. He died, at about age 35, in 1537, the year after Anne's execution, soon after his young brother Thomas Percy has been killed for his part in the Pilgrimage of Grace (Ives, pp. 63-67; Lomas, pp. 173-175). Even though Thomas Percy the brother of the sixth earl was a rebel, Thomas's son Thomas was allowed to succeed to the earldom as the seventh earl (Lomas, p. 53). However, the government so restricted his powers as Warden of the East Marches of Scotland that he felt compelled to resign the post (Lomas, pp. 176-177),
Charles Neville, the sixth earl of Westmorland, had had his wings clipped even more explicitly; Elizabeth's government had refused to let him inherit his father's Lord Lieutenancy of Durham (Lomas, p. 176). He was married to Jane Howard, the daughter of the executed Earl of Surrey and the sister of Norfolk (Lomas, p. 177; Hibbert, p. 173). Norfolk himself had taken, as his third wife, the widow of Lord Dacre, another important northern lord, and was trying to marry his children from his earlier marriages to Dacre's children so as to reunite the inheritances (Williams, pp. 116-117). The Rising really was a family affair! Norfolk's marriage perhaps had another significance: Elizabeth Leyburne Dacre was a very committed Catholic (Williams, pp. 126-127) -- though she promptly died in childbirth, with the child also dying, leaving Norfolk a widower for the third time (Williams, p. 128).
The north was also conservative; in the period after Henry VIII created Anglicanism, Catholicism remained the religion of much of the north (Henry Percy, e.g., was very firmly Catholic). As the rest of England had become a more modern place, "The process of sophistication, with its unifying effects, had made little or no way in other places. This was especially true of the north, with its wild moors and remote valleys, where time stood still, or resented southern efforts to jerk it forward, where old manners and the old faith and old loyalties persisted, where men were reluctant to know any prince but a Percy or a Neville" (Neale, p. 179). The north was religiously isolated in the late 1500s; by 1569, Elizabeth was securely Protestant, and her (Catholic) heir Mary Queen of Scots was in her custody.
Mary for a time was guarded by Henry, Lord Scrope of Bolton -- who just happened to be married to Norfolk's sister (Williams, p. 134), so Norfolk had a sort of channel of communication. Interestingly, it was a Scot, the amazingly slippery Maitland of Lethington (for whom again see "Mary Hamilton" [Child 173]; Maitland was the husband of Mary Fleming, one of the "Four Maries") who apparently first suggested the match (Williams, pp. 138-139). Norfolk was also involved in the farce of Mary's first trial (Williams, pp. 140-145, etc.), where the (non-)outcome was determined by Elizabeth: no verdict was rendered against anyone.
The "Rising in the North" did not actually begin in Northumbria; Norfolk had first contacted the Spanish about giving the throne to Mary Stewart. He also seemed to like the idea that he marry her. Some people actually thought this killed two birds with one stone: it would settle the succession and determine what to do about Mary (MacCulloch/Fletcher, pp. 105-106). It also addressed the problem that no one, in England or Scotland, trusted her (Neale, pp. 185-186). Elizabeth, however, was absolutely opposed to the idea. Williams, p. 145, suggests that the idea of marrying Mary had Norfolk thinking he would eventually become king, and "he had not the will to resist his impulses and hold back from the realisation of so glittering an ambition."
Norfolk, in addition to his desire for a throne, had a political beef with Elizabeth: he resented the power of Elizabeth's favorites the Cecils (Neale, p. 181, says that many falsely blamed Elizabeth's policies on Cecil because they couldn't believe a woman could rule). He had treasonous ideas, and seemingly shared them with others, including Neville and Percy. It wasn't a comfortable alliance at all, since the different parties had different ends (Norfolk wanted to be King of Scotland, and maybe England; many English nobles -- including even Elizabeth's favorite Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester -- hated Cecil; others wanted Catholicism back), but Norfolk's kinsman the Earl of Arundel managed to stitch together a coalition (Williams, pp. 150-151) -- or so he thought.
Norfolk, however, lacked the decisiveness of his ancestors; when it came time to act, he quickly backed down and left court (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 106). A few days later, he sent messages north saying not to rebel, and went back to court to surrender (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 107). Elizabeth, however, assumed he would raise a rebellion -- and as a result took Mary into tighter custody at a location not as close to the border (Williams, p. 173) as well as throwing Norfolk into the Tower.
The northern earls (Thomas Percy of Northumberland and Charles Neville of Westmorland) were not the real organizers of the Rising. "Four men can be identified as the main agitators who instigated the rebellion: Richard Norton, the 81-year-old sheriff of Yorkshire; Christopher Neville [Westmorland's uncle]; Thomas Markenfield, Norton's son-in-law; and Dr Nicholas Morrton, a Catholic former canon of Canterbury Cathedral who had returned from exile abroad" (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 113). The earls were to some extent dragged in their wake. At first they hesitated, not knowing what to make of Norfolk's actions. But Elizabeth didn't trust them and summoned them to answer (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 107; Neale, p. 190; Lomas, p. 178), and they faced pressure at home (Hibbert, pp. 177, quotes Westmorland's wife as saying they would be "shamed for ever" if they backed down; Williams, p. 172, attributes Westmorland's rebellion as a response to his Countess's outburst). Meanwhile, their followers grew restive. Northumberland, when examined in 1872, claimed (probably truly) that his followers pushed him into it, even though, after Norfolk chickened out, Mary Queen of Scots and the Spanish ambassador both said not to move (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 169).
Of course, Norfolk and the two earls weren't the only leaders. Richard Norton, mentioned above and in the song, "was remarkable in that he was over seventy years old, having been born in 1498; had taken part in the Pilgrimage of Grace; and had eleven sons, nine of whom were to join him in rebellion" (Lomas, p. 177).
"By supporting Norfolk, the earls were not so much interested in enhancing the duke's position as in preserving their own. The control and influence their families had once exerted over northern England had been declining under the Tudors, and they were especially threatened by the centralizing policies of Elizabeth and her chief advisor, William Cecil. Many northern Catholics disliked the queen's Protestant Church, and the earls hoped to use this religious discontent to serve their own political ends" (Wagner, p. 213). Hence their willingness to continue their revolt even when Norfolk backed out. Also, since Norfolk had been taken into custody, they probably feared the same fate.
The northern Earls succeeded in raising the north (including even Yorkshire, led by its sheriff Richard Norton), but they did not capture Queen Mary and could not bring the rest of the country to their banner (Holinshed says they gathered about seven thousand men, but even this may be exaggerated; such reports often are). (Some of Norfolk's own tenants also rose, showing that he had the means to support the rebellion, but they had no competent leader and it all came to nothing; Williams, pp. 176-179.)
Norfolk did not have much interest in eliminating Elizabeth, and even the northern earls did not actually demand Elizabeth's overthrow (Williams, p. 173) -- but they wanted Mary back on the Scottish throne and a restoration of Catholicism in England; the last demand was the most strongly proclaimed, and Elizabeth's lieutenant Sussex thought it was their most successful recruiting tool (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 115, though on pp. 116-117 they point out that even this was less effective than it had been during the Pilgrimage of Grace a generation earlier). The threat to replace Elizabeth with Mary was obvious. Their first move was to occupy Durham Cathedral on November 14, 1569, eliminating Protestant tokens and celebrating the Mass (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 108).
On November 22 they reached Bramham Moor with a force reported at 1600 cavalry and 3800 infantry, the former fairly good but the latter of very poor quality (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p, 108). At their peak, they controlled all of Northumberland and Durham and much of Yorkshire. They had taken Hartelpool for purposes of welcoming Spanish aid that never came (Williams, p. 173). And yet -- on November 24, they chickened out; they retreated first to Knaresborough west of York, and kept retreating; by November 30, they were back to Brancepeth near Durham (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 109). The government still didn't have much force in the area, but the rebels had given up.
"The northern rising in November, under the Catholic earls of Northumberland and Westmorland, did nothing to improve [the imprisoned] Queen Mary's lot. This rising, ill-prepared and ill-organized, was more in the nature of a separatist movement on the part of northern Catholics, than a revolt on behalf of Mary Queen of Scots. Queen Mary herself disapproved of it... on the very sensible grounds that she did not believe it would do her cause any good, since the moment was hardly ripe for such a demonstration" (Fraser, p. 420).
The failings of the revolt were myriad, and mostly due to lack of coordination ("The rebellion had failed primarily because of its incoherence and aimlessness"; MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 110). Some sympathetic nobles, such as the Earl of Cumberland, never even joined the rebellion, and Northumberland's hesitation meant that many of his own forces were left behind (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p 110; Lomas, p. 179, estimates that, of the 4000 men who rose, 56% were from Yorkshire, 40% from Durham, and just 4% from Northumberland). If Norfolk, Northumberland, Westmorland, and Cumberland had all risen at once, and chosen a decent commander (i.e. probably not Norfolk, even though as a Duke he was the senior noble), Elizabeth might have been overthrown. As it was, she was never really in danger. The rebellion never even managed any sort of a battle except for a trivial skirmish at Hexham (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 110). Only a few lords on Elizabeth's side -- notably the Earl of Sussex, Lord Scrope, and Sir John Forster, Warden of the East March -- had had to take serious action on her behalf (MacCulloch/Fletcher, pp. 110-111)
The rebellion was dispersed by the end of December, with the rebels in full flight. The leaders crossed the Scottish border on December 20, 1569 (Neale, p. 192).
Leonard Lord Dacre should have been the third leader of the revolt, but there was a problem: he was the brother of the Lord Dacre whose widow Norfolk had married (Williams, p. 119), so there had been major quarrels about whether the title and lands would pass to him. He avoided taking a part in the 1569 revolt, probably due to his problems with Norfolk -- then too late, tried to fan the flames in 1570 (Williams, p. 174). He was easily suppressed; defeated on February 19, 1570, he too fled north (Neale, pp. 192-193), leaving some 300 dead on the field and as many more as prisoners (Williams, p. 174).
If the first part of the rebellion was bloodless, the aftermath was not. Elizabeth was a Tudor, and in this case, she followed the Tudor policy of "massacre first and ask questions later. Better yet, massacre first and massacre later, too." She wanted blood. MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 111, think it likely that 450 men were executed (most of them, note, being mere peasants who followed their lord), with some estimates as high as 700 or even 800. Neale, p. 192, thinks 600 died; Hibbert, p, 179, thinks the Queen authorized up to 700 deaths.
Both Earls fled to Scotland -- which, however, was close to England at the time; the regent Moray had been a leader in overthrowing his half-sister Mary, and there was no way he was going to risk having her come back! Westmoreland went on to the Netherlands, where the Habsburg government supported him; "after serving as a colonel in a regiment of other Catholic refugees in the service of Spain, he died at Nieuwpoort, deeply in debt" (Hibbert, p. 178). "For the Neville family it was a complete disaster. The earl of Westmoreland never returned and the Neville estate was permanently forfeited" (Lomas, pp. 178-179).
Northumberland, who was captured by the freebooting Armstrongs (Lomas, p. 178), was sold back to the English and executed at York in August 1572 (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 112; Wagner, p. 213). His wife ended up in exile, and eventually in a convent after even the Habsburgs apparently grew tired of her (Hibbert, p. 178). Northumberland's death functionally ended the two century association of the Percies and their county; although Thomas Percy's brother Henry was allowed to become Eighth Earl, he relocated to Petworth in Sussex (Lomas, p. 65). All three families, Percy, Neville, and Dacre, ceased to be border lords in any real sense. Elizabeth used their forfeited lands to reward her followers (Williams, p. 175), permanently breaking the link between the old lords in the north. And, in the end, the Eighth Earl of Northumberland would commit suicide in 1584 because the Tudors were after him, too (Lomas, p, 179).
Northumberland was eventually beatified by the Catholic Church (1895, according to Wikipedia).
"From start to finish the rebellion was a blunder. It was unplanned and without any strategic aim or tactical plan. The two leaders were probably not wholehearted and most of their followers were hot heads" (Lomas, p. 178).
For the sequels to this, see "Northumberland Betrayed by Douglas" [Child 176] and "The Earl of Westmoreland" [Child 177]. Given their careful coverage of the main characters of the rebellion, I have to think that the three pieces were probably a deliberate set.
I also note that, although the Percy Folio (the source of all the songs) is usually dated c. 1650, there is enough of a margin about that date that it is just barely possible that it was assembled by someone by someone who remembered the Rising -- and quite possible that it was by someone who remembered the general suspicion and religious tension and arbitrary justice of the the Elizabethan era.
Norfolk, having blown his big chance and lost any chance of getting the support of the northern Catholics, managed somehow to plan something even more stupid. Roberto Ridolfi, an Italian banker living in England, was trying to arrange a Spanish invasion on behalf of Mary Stewart, and he hooked Norfolk into the plan. It would also involve the assassination of Cecil (Williams, p. 231, makes this sound almost like a separate subplot, the whole thing was so complicated). It failed -- in part because of Ridolfi's big mouth, although its biggest problem was probably that it was simply too complex and involved too many people who could talk -- and although Ridolfi escaped (and even received a Papal reward; Williams, p. 223) and Mary was allowed to live, Norfolk was charged with treason.
Treason trials at this time were shams. The accused was not allowed counsel. The charges were read to him -- in Latin -- only at the start of the proceedings; he had neither time to study them nor the opportunity to research his defense (Williams, pp. 232-237). The Elizabethan Age may have been the height of the Renaissance in England, but that doesn't change the fact that the Tudors ran a police state. Of course he was convicted. The only wonder is that he wasn't executed on the spot; he was given time to arrange his affairs (insofar as he could do so from the Tower), write to his children, and pen useless appeals (Williams, pp. 239-247).
It can't have been a pleasant wait. Elizabeth waited a long time before finally authorizing the execution (Norfolk was, after all, her cousin on her mother's side), but she made several false starts, meaning that Norfolk was several times given an execution date that was rescinded. It was five months before Elizabeth made her final decision (Williams, pp. 248-251). Cecil had to keep prodding her (Williams, p. 252) -- a somewhat biased act, since he had wardship over some of Norfolk's heirs, plus of course they were threats to his position. Norfolk finally lost his head on June 2, 1572 (Neale, pp. 198-202, 207; Wagner, pp. 261-262; Williams seems to think that the long period of waiting had so debilitated him that he almost welcomed the end). At his execution, he denied he was a Catholic, admitted to some of his acts although denying evil intent, asked forgiveness. The executioner was competent; he cut off Norfolk's head with a single blow (Williams, pp. 253-254).
The Norfolk earldom was discontinued with him; much later, the Stuarts gave it to his grandson, and the Howard family has held it ever since. However, the later Earls of Norfolk have stayed away from politics, because they were and are Catholic. And they no longer hold the lands of the old Norfolk earldom, which were dissolved (Williams, pp. 258-259).
Although the song doesn't mention him, Norfolk was at the heard of the whole Rising. He really had been stupid in his behavior. Odd, given that Williams thinks he was fairly competent in his early years; it almost makes me wonder if his illnesses or imprisonment had damaged his mind. In any case, with him died the closest thing to an internal threat to the Elizabethan regime. Elizabeth and Cecil had done a fine job of weakening the old nobility -- there were no Dukes left in England, e.g. -- which made the monarchy much more secure.
The aftermath was interesting. Printing at this time was heavily regulated in England; in theory, everything that was published was supposed to be approved. Yet, according to Greg, p. 43, "of the considerable number of publications concerned with such a dangerous topic as the rising in the North in the autumn of 1569 not one sought the protection or advertisement of official imprimatur[.]" Greg seems sure that some actually did gain approval, and the approval simply wasn't mentioned in the Stationer's Register (which is the basis for his statement), but it seems pretty clear that a lot of shady publications came out in this period. Could this be descended from one of them? I don't know.
There was another side-effect of the rising: The Papacy finally excommunicated Elizabeth (Neale, p. 197), That didn't at once affect relations with France or Spain, but it certainly didn't help the standing of Mary Queen of Scots, who now, in Catholic eyes, was clearly Queen of England....
It's also interesting to note that it was in 1571, very soon after the rising and before Norfolk's death, that the Thirty-Nine Articles were published, formalizing the doctrines of the Church of England. These were less extremely Protestant than Edward VI's Forty-two articles, but often written in such a way as to allow either fairly Protestant or fairly Catholic understandings (Smith, pp. 284-285). Publishing these Articles wasn't entirely out of the blue -- Elizabeth had been working on religious compromises from the start of her reign! -- but no doubt the Rising added some urgency,
Child's notes on the song cover most of what one needs to know once one knows the context. The ballad is inaccurate in a number of details but fairly accurate in broad outlines. The main defect is probably that it concentrates so much on northern events; there is no mention of Norfolk's dubious role. The main mentions of historical persons:
Verse 2: "the good Erle of Westemoreland... wroughte treason." This is probably too strong a statement, but certainly Westmoreland was part of the Rising.
Verse 3: "the Erle of Northumberland... against the crowne they wolden bee." Same comment as Westmoreland.
Verse 4: "Earle Percy...I must either fight or flee." Earl Percy is Northumberland. The context is Elizabeth's call on Northumberland and Westmoreland to come to London and answer for their actions. The Northern Earls, while not yet condemned, were understandably afraid to do so!
Verse 5: Earl Percy's wife bids him "goe to London to the court And faire ffall truth and honestye!" The song's first real error; as far as we know, the Countess of Northumberland never urged such a cautious course -- she was much more gung ho for rebellion than he was.
Verse 6: "My treason is known well enoughe." Not really true; Northumberland and Westmorland were under suspicion, but it was only that. Admittedly the Tudor policy was "eliminate troublemakers now and ask questions later"; Elizabeth might well have decided to execute the Earls because they might cause trouble. But they had not in fact committed treason at the time they were summoned to London; they had merely been upset about the loss of their perceived rights.
Verse 11: "Master Norton"; cf. verse 40, "Ffrancis Nortton and his eight sonnes": Richard Norton, mentioned above. As can be seen, there is disagreement about his age, but no question but that he was interested in revolt. And he had a small army of sons to take part in it.
Verse 16/Verse 19/Verse 20/Verse 22: "Kester Nortton"/"My nine good sonnes"/'eight of them"//"Ffrancis Norton"; The song gets the names, numbers, and roles of Richard Norton's sons wrong, but the general idea is right: there were a lot of sons, and most but not all of them went into rebellion with their father.
Verse 29: "Whethersbye": Presumably Wetherby, which is just north of the midpoint of a line between York and what is now Leeds. The northerners' force passed it after they left Durham (Williams, p. 173). It is very near the hamlet of Bramham, so I assume this is a reference to the army that gathered on Bramham Moor.
Verse 29: "Thirteen thousand men there were seene": Much too high, but inflating the size of an army was standard practice at the time. This inflated number may well have come from the poet's source.
Verse 30: "Erle of Westmoreland, he had in his ancyent... The dunn bull... And three doggs with golden collars." A reference to the arms of the Nevilles of Raby/Nevilles of Westmorland. It refers not to their shield (which was a red shield with a white X) but their crest was a bull's head. Looking at heraldry sites, it appears they also used dogs in some of their heraldry, but I won't pretend I understood the descriptions....
Verse 31: "Earle of Northumberland he had in his ancyent... The half moon." The Percy arms were a blue lion, but their crest was apparently a crescent moon opening upward. Perhaps the mention was reinforced by the fact that the seventh earl was the son of a second son; a crescent moon was sometimes used as an emblem for a second son.
Verse 32: "Sir George Bowes": Bowes was based at Barnard Castle, and the northern gentry who opposed the Rising gathered around him there (MacCulloch/Fletcher, 107). Bowes was besieged in early December (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 109). After many of his men deserted, he was allowed to retire with some other loyalists (MacCulloch/Fletcher, p. 110; Williams, p. 173), but he had delayed the earls, who had gone after him rather than proceeding toward the south. Bowes's surrender is presumably what is referred to in verse 33, "This barron did take a castle then."
Verse 37: "Shee [Elizabeth] caused thirty thousand men to be made": Another obviously-too-large estimate, but the government certainly did gather its forces; it's just that it never had to use them.
Verse 38: "the false Erle of Warwicke": The esrl of Warwick at this time was Ambrose Dudley, the third son of John Dudley Duke of Northumberland and the older brother of Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester. He had joined his father in supporting Lady Jane Grey as queen rather than Mary Tudor, but was forgiven; Elizabeth made him Earl of Warwick in 1561 (Wagner, p. 89). His health was permanently damaged fighting in France in 1563, but he led troops against Dacre's rebellion (Williams, p. 174) and was one of those who later condemned Norfolk (Wagner, p. 89).
So why was he false? I can think of many possible reasons. One was just that he opposed the Rising. But there are stronger possibilities. You'll note that his father had been Duke of Northumberland. The Dudleys had replaced the Percy Earls of Northumberland for a while, so any Dudley might be seen as a false earl. Also, Leicester had seemed to be opposed to Cecil, so it might be assumed that his brother Warwick would be also, yet Warwick opposed the rising. Finally, there is the curious history of the Warwick earldom itself. The last Beauchamp Earl of Warwick had died more than a century before, without a son. His daughter had married Richard Neville (note that surname!), who became "Warwick the Kingmaker" in the Wars of the Roses. The Kingmaker too had left only daughters. His older daughter had married George of Clarence, brother of Edward IV, and they had a son and a daughter. The son became Earl of Warwick, but was executed by Henry VII without leaving children. This arguably should have made his sister Countess of Warwick -- and although she had been executed by Henry VIII, she at least had descendants; probably Henry Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon, had the best claim to the Warwick earldom. So the Nevilles might have thought a Neville should be Earl of Warwick, and anyone at all might think that Huntingdon should be Earl -- meaning that there was no opening for Amboise Dudley to become Earl of Warwick.
There are several scholarly books about the 1569 Northern Rebellion; most are extremely rare or expensive or both. The most authoritative appears to be K. J. Kesselring, The Northern Rebellion of 1569: Faith, Politics, and Protest in Elizabethan England Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. There is also Cuthbert Sharp, The Rising in the North: The 1569 Rebellion (also sometimes titled Memorials Of The Rebellion Of 1569), 1840; reprinted, Shotton, 1975; plus a pamphlet by R. Reid, The Rebellion of the Earls, 1569. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 6.8
File: C175

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2024 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.