To What Extent Did Somerset and Northumberland Deserve Their Traditional Reputations?

1032 Words5 Pages
To what extent did Somerset and Northumberland deserve their traditional reputations? (45 Marks) The debate of the Good Duke and Bad Duke has been an important historiographical debate for the past few decades. The traditional view labels Somerset the ‘Good Duke’ and Northumberland the ‘Bad Duke’. Whether they deserve these titles is still debated by Historians today. Regarding the economy, it is Somerset who acts in a bad way that could taint his reputation. Somerset increased military expenditure with the garrisoning of Scotland and the threat of war against France increasing. He also continued debasement, a policy from Henry VIII’s rule that results in high inflation and a rise in poverty. In contrast to this Northumberland tried to rectify his predecessor’s mistakes. He reduced military expenditure, withdrawing the garrisons from Scotland and commissions were set up to enquire about the state’s finances. He put an end debasement, eventually, when he told people that they should trust the coinage and that they should lower their prices, but he ended up creating more economic problems. Northumberland did reduce the debt of the country within 1550 started at £300’000 and by 1553 the debts were reduced to £180’000. He had to sell chantry lands to pay off the debt. Bush claims that Somerset’s economic policy was ‘in keeping with the times’ and while this may be true the long term problems that could have been faced by the State, had Northumberland not taken command, could have been devastating for the country. Northumberland was left with a big debt to sort out, which he managed to do while keeping the country safe from invasion, which I not typical of a bad reputation. For both of these rulers their policies for foreign countries provides contradictory evidence to the traditional reputations they have been given. Somerset’s policy with Scotland lay with the
Open Document